kU- 


-t: 


.* 


• » 


*%4 


V  V 


Ekvv 


y 


tt-r- 


ALUMNI  LIBRARY, 
THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY, 

PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


Case,      Divl£l" 
Shelf,     Sectio 
I)        Book,     n«, 


■  a<^,cag=^ac,g=>.c11.-,^=^e^,^iJ.:.c^^5i!  £: 


/355 


•  •  v 


V 


/ 


TO 


UNITARIANS 


OCCASIONED  BY  THE  SERMON 


OF   THE   REVEREND   WILLIAM   E.   CHANNING 


AT  THE  ORDINATION  OF  THE 


REV.  J.  SPARKS. 


BY  LEONARD  WOODS,  D.D. 

ABBOT  PROFESSOR  OF  CHRISTIAN    THEOLOGY   IN  THE  THEOL 
SEMINARY, ANDOYER. 


ANDOVER : 

PUBLISHED  BY  FLAGG  AND  GOULD. 

1320. 


DISTRICT    OF   MASSACHUSETTS,  TO  WIT  : 

District  Clerk's  Office. 

Be  «t  remembered,  that  on  the  twenty  eighth  day  of  March,  a.d.  1820,  and  ia 
the  forty  fourth  year  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States  of  America,  Flagg 
&  Gould  of  the  said  district,  have  deposited  in  this  office  the  title  of  a  book, 
the  right  whereof  they  claim  as  proprietors,  in  the  words  following,  viz "  Let- 
ters to  Unitarians  occasioned  by  the  Sermon  of  the  Rev.  William  E.  Channing 
at  the  ordination  of  the  Rev.  J.  Sparks.  By  Leonard  Woods,  d.d.  Abbot  Pro- 
fessor of  Christian  Theology  in  the  Theol.  Sem.  Andover. — In  conformity  to  the 
act  of  the  congress  of  the  United  States  of  America,  entitled  "  An  Act  for  the 
encouragement  of  learning,  by  securing  the  copies  of  maps,  charts  and  books, 
to  the  authors  and  proprietors  of  such  copie3  during  the  times  therein  mention- 
ed :"  and  also  to  an  Act  entitled,  "  An  act  supplementary  to  an  Act,  entitled, 
An  Act  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  securing  the  copies  of  maps,  charts 
and  books,  to  the  authors  and  proprietors  of  such  copies  during  the  times  there- 
in mentioned  ;  and  extending  the  benefits  thereof  to  the  arts  of  designing,  en- 
graving and  etching  historical,  and  other  prints." 

Jjro.  W.  Davis,    \  Clerrk  frthe  *?islrict 
'    (      of  Massachusetts. 


I 


CONTENTS. 


LETTER  I. 

fAGB. 

Introductory  remarks     .......         3 — 7 

LETTER  II. 

The  propriety  of  a  creed. — The  right  of  declaring  our 
own  opinions. — This  right  infringed. — Opinions  rep- 
resented as  peculiar  to  Unitarians,  which  belong  to  the 
Orthodox  ; — particularly  as  to  God's  unity,  and  moral 
perfection        .         .         .         .         .         .         i         .       8 — 17 

LETTER  III. 

Views  of  the  Orthodox  respecting  the  character  and  gov- 
ernment of  God. — His  paternal  character  illustrated       18 — 24 

LETTER  IV. 

The  proof  that  the  Orthodox  deny  the  moral  perfection 
of  God,  considered. — Native  character  of  man. — Pro- 
per mode  of  reasoning  on  this  subject        .         «         •     2-1 — 30 

LETTER  V. 

The  doctrine  of  man's  depravity  stated,  and  proved. — Ar- 
gument from  the  Old  Testament ; — confirmed  by  Paul's 
reasoning,  Rom.  iii. — The  principle  involved  in  the 
reasoning 31 — 41 

LETTER  VI. 

Another  argument  from  the  Old  Testament,  Jer.  xvi.  9,  in 
prr>of  of  man's  depravity. — Arguments  from  the  Neir 


IV 

Testament,  John  in.  1 — 7.  Rom.  v.  12. — Imputation 
considered.  Ephes.  ii.  3. — Argument  from  the  call  to 
repent. — Moral  character  of  God  and  human  depravity 
not  inconsistent 41 — 52 

LETTER  VII. 

The  doctrine  of  Election. — Preliminary  remarks. — Proof 
of  the  doctrine,  from  John  xvii,  Ephes.  i.  3 — 1 1,  Rom. 
ix.  11—  24,  &c 52—62 

LETTER  VIII. 

Misrepresentations  of  the  doctrine  of  Election,  and  the 

common  objections  against  it,  considered  .         .       63 — 83 

LETTER  IX. 

Atonement. Misrepresentations. Metaphorical  lan- 
guage employed  by  the  Orthodox,  and  by  the  Scrip- 
tures.— Cautions  to  be  observed  respecting  the  use 
of  metaphorical  language. — Two  classes  of  texts  re- 
specting forgiveness. — The  nature  and  design  of  the 
atonement. — Objection  as  to  the  value  of  Christ's 
sufferings,  considered 83 — 106 

LETTER  X. 

The  doctrine  of  divine  influence  illustrated,  and  guard- 
ed against  misstatements  and  objections         .        ,      106 — 120 

LETTER  XI. 

Additional  remarks  on  representations  in  the  Sermon. — 
Object  of  Christ's  mission. — Nature  of  holiness. — 
Principle  of  moral  government      ....     120 — 132 

LETTER  XII. 

Practical  influence  of  the  two  systems,  generally,  and 
particularly. — Love  to  God. — Gratitude  to  God.— r 


Love  to  Christ. — Faith  in  Christ. — Dread  of  sin,  and 
care  to  obey  the  divine  precepts. — Reverence  for 
the  Bible. — Benevolent  action,  particularly  the 
spread  of  the  Gospel. — Closing  remarks         .         .     132 — 160 


ERRATA. 

Page  12,  line  2  from  bottom,  read  conduct. 
15,  1 ,  Mathers. 

25,        13,  could,  for  would, 

36,        1 5,  whatsoever. 

106,  read,  Letter  X.     P.  120,  Letter  XI 

132.  Letter  XII 


LETTER   I, 


My  respected  friends. 

It  has  been  the  general  sentiment  of  those,  who  are 
denominated  Unitarians  in  this  country,  that  religious 
controversy  is  undesirable,  and  of  dangerous  tendency ; 
and  that  it  is  the  duty  of  Christians  of  different  parties 
to  look  with  candor  on  each  other's  opinions,  and  not 
to  magnify,  beyond  necessity,  the  points  of  difference. 
To  this  sentiment  of  yours  respecting  the  danger  of  con- 
troversy, and  the  importance  of  candor  and  forbearance. 
I  cordially  agree.  I  regard  it,  as  one  of  the  great  ends, 
which  remains  to  be  achieved  by  the  influence  of  the 
christian  religion,  that  all  bitterness  and  strife  should 
be  banished  from  the  world,  and  the  spirit  of  love  and 
peace  universally  prevail.  With  a  view  to  this  momen- 
tous end,  I  have  made  it  my  care,  to  guard,  as  far  as 
possible,  against  introducing  any  thing  disputatious  into 
the  pulpit, — especially  on  an  occasion  of  so  much  inter- 
est, and  so  much  tender  emotion,  as  that  of  ordaining  a 
Christian  Minister.  By  these  views  I  have  actually 
governed  myself  for  many  years.  I  admit,  indeed,  the 
lawfulness,  and,  in  some  cases,  the  expedience  and  ne- 
cessity of  religious  controversy;  audi  have  endeavor- 
ed to  form  some  definite  views  of  the  principles,  on 
which  it  ought  to  be  conducted.  But  I  will  frankly  e» 
press  my  apprehension,  that  it  may  require  more  cau- 
tion, meekne??.  and  self  control.  <h;in  1  possess,  to  secure 


an  exact  observance  of  those  rules  of  controversy,  which 
I  should  prescribe  for  others.  At  the  present  time,  and 
in  my  present  undertaking,  I  cannot  be  insensible  of  spe- 
cial danger,  as  the  controversy  between  the  two  parties 
has,  for  several  years,  been  carried  on  in  various  forms, 
and  with  no  inconsiderable  warmth,  and  there  are,  I  am 
sorry  to  say,  on  both  sides,  and  even  among  the  more 
moderate,  too  many  symptoms  of  strong  excitement. 
But  whatever  may  be  the  circumstances  of  the  present 
time,  or  the  nature  of  the  business  I  have  undertaken, 
I  wish  here  to  declare  my  utter  abhorrence  of  the  prac- 
tice, which  has  been  too  common,  of  applying  reproach- 
ful epithets  to  an  opponent,  and  of  misrepresenting  his 
real  opinions,  or  endeavoring,  by  painting  them  in  the 
most  glaring  colors,  to  expose  them  to  contempt ; — espe- 
cially, of  any  disposition  to  sully  his  reputation,  to  inflict 
a  wound  on  his  feelings,  or  to  triumph  at  the  discovery 
of  his  imperfections.  Such  things  are  totally  repugnant 
to  the  legitimate  ends  of  controversy,  and  ought  to  be 
reprobated  by  all  Christians,  just  as  we  reprobate  the 
ferocities  and  cruelties  of  savage  war. 

The  sermon,  which  occasions  these  Letters  to  you, 
is  entitled  to  particular  attention,  on  account  of  the  tal- 
ents and  public  character  of  the  author,  and,  most  of  all, 
because  he  feels  himself  authorised  to  speak  in  your 
name.  The  sermon  comes  forth,  as  the  voice  of  your 
denomination,  and  is  extensively  circulated,  as  an  instru- 
ment of  promoting  your  cause.  On  such  an  occasion,  it 
is  unquestionably  proper,  that  our  attention  should  be 
turned  afresh  to  the  question,  whether  the  cause,  which 
this  sermon  advocates,  is  indeed  the  cause  of  God. 

To  men,  who  are  friends  to  unfettered  inquiry,  I 
shall  think  it  unnecessary  to  offer  any  apology  for  the 
freedom  of  my  remarks  on  the  various  subjects,  which 


will  be  brought  into  view  in  these  Letters.  And  I  hope 
you  will  not  deem  it  improper,  that  my  remarks  should 
be  addressed  to  yon, — inasmuch  as  the  subjects  of  the 
discussion,  on  which  I  am  entering,  have  been  introduced 
by  one,  who  appears  before  the  public,  as  your  repre- 
sentative ; — especially,  as  the  manner,  in  which  he  treats 
these  subjects  is,  in  most  respects,  not  unlike  the  man- 
ner, in  which  they  have  generally  been  treated  by  those. 
who  have  embraced  the  Arian  or  Socinian  faith.  This 
sermon  is  a  fair  specimen  of  the  mode,  in  which  we  have 
been  accustomed  to  see  our  religious  opinions  opposed 
in  the  writings  of  Unitarians.  Now  it  must  be  allowed 
to  be  a  sufficient  justification  of  this  attempt  of  mine,  if 
I  am  fully  convinced,  that  my  opinions,  and  those  of  the 
Orthodox  generally,  are  misunderstood,  and  essentially 
misrepresented  by  Unitarians,  and  particularly  by  the 
author  of  this  sermon.  I  am  convinced  of  this.  And  I 
think  too,  that  the  mistaken  views,  exhibited  in  the  ser- 
mon, are  exhibited  in  a  manner,  which,  after  cool  and 
sober  examination,  neither  the  writer,  nor  his  readers, 
will  be  much  disposed  to  justify. 

It  seems  there  has,  for  some  time,  been  a  general 
expectation  in  this  vicinity  of  some  publication  from  mo 
relative  to  the  sermon  which  has  occasioned  these  Let- 
ters ;  and  inquiries  have  not  unfrequently  been  made,  as 
to  the  reasons  of  such  a  delay.  Those  reasons  I  will 
now  frankly  suggest.  First.  The  regular  duties  of  my 
office  are  sufficient  to  occupy  my  whole  time ;  and  I 
found  it  would  require  some  effort  in  me,  to  be  able  to 
devote  only  a  few  hours  in  a  week  to  such  an  employ- 
ment as  this.  Another  reason  was,  that  I  wished  not 
to  interrupt  the  attention,  which  the  public  were  inclin- 
ed to  give  to  what  had  already  been  written,  on  one  ot 
the  principal  subjects  of  discussion  between  the  two  par- 


ties.  Besides  ;  I  hoped  that  by  taking  a  longer  time,  I 
should  keep  myself  at  a  greater  distance  from  the  agi- 
tation and  heat  of  controversy,  and  more  perfectly  avoid 
every  appearance  of  wishing  to  make  a  personal  attack 
upon  any  man;  and  that  I  should  be  better  able  to  fix 
your  attention,  as  well  as  my  own,  upon  the  subjects 
themselves,  which  were  to  be  investigated,  without  re- 
gard to  any  considerations  whatever,  not  conducive  to 
a  fair  and  thorough  investigation. 

The  favor  which  I  now  ask  of  you  is,  not  that  you 
Avould  treat  my  opinions  and  arguments  with  lenity  and 
forbearance,  but  that  you  would  give  me  a  patient  and 
candid  hearing,  while  I  attempt,  on  several  important 
points,  to  explain  and  defend  the  religious  sentiments  of 
the  Orthodox  in  New-England;  and  while  I  attempt  to 
show,  in  what  respects  the  writings  of  Unitarians  essen- 
tially misrepresent  our  faith,  and  go  into  a  manner  of 
reasoning  which  is  liable  to  just  exceptions.  I  wish,  par- 
ticularly, to  state  the  objections  I  feel,  to  several  repre- 
sentations and  modes  of  argumentation,  contained  in  this 
Sermon,  and  to  suggest  some  reasons,  why  the  Author 
himself,  and  those  who  have  implicitly  relied  upon  the 
correctness  of  his  positions,  should  allow  themselves 
time  for  a  serious  review  of  the  ground  of  this  contro- 
versy. I  wish,  in  short,  as  far  as  the  limits  which  I  must 
prescribe  for  myself  will  allow,  to  embraee  the  present 
opportunity,  to  do  justice  to  myself  and  my  brethren,  and 
to  satisfy  those,  who  differ  from  us,  as  to  the  character 
and  the  evidence  of  that  system  of  religion,  which  we 
believe. 

The  subjects,  which  have  been  discussed  by  my  belov- 
ed Colleague,  the  Rev.  Moses  Stuart,  will  here  be  omit- 
ted. I  regret,  with  many  others,  that  his  health  and 
professional  labors  did  not  permit  him  to  employ  his  tal< 


ents  and  erudition  on  all  the  remaining  topics  of  the  Ser- 
mon.    It  is  at  his  suggestion,  and  by  his  request,  that  I 
have  turned  aside  from  my  common  labors,  and,  let  me 
say  too,  from  my  prevailing  determination,  so  much  as  to 
take  a  part  publicly  in  the  controversy,  which  unhappi- 
ly divides  this  region  of  our  country.     But,  though  I  am 
urged   to    this   undertaking  by   the  request  of  those,  in 
whom  I  am  accustomed  to  repose  entire  confidence,  and 
though  I  am  fully  persuaded  that  the  opinions  of  the  Or- 
thodox have  been  treated  unjustly  ;  I  am  almost  ready 
to  withdraw  my  hand  from  this  work,  from  a  painful  ap- 
prehension, that  my  efforts  may  serve  but  to  increase  or 
perpetuate  the  spirit  of  prejudice  and  animosity,  which 
has  shown  itself  among  us  in  so  many  forms,  and  which, 
so  far  as  it  prevails,  does  really  cut   off  all  prospect  of 
attaining  the  ends  of  free  investigation.     But  I   indulge 
the  hope,  that  a  different  spirit  is  gaining  ground.     And 
I  could  wish,  that  the  Reverend  Author,  who  has  under- 
taken to  speak  in  your  behalf,  might  have  enjoyed  the 
happiness  of  a  more  unru  filed  mind,  and  the  honor  of  do- 
ing something  more  for  that  cause,  which  he  is  so  well 
able  to  promote, — the  cause  of  love,  candor,  and  gentleness. 
I  think  that  he,  and  many  others  will  acknowledge  the 
benefit  they  have,  in  this  respect,  derived  from  the  ex- 
ample of  my  worthy  Colleague.     It  is  from  the  hope, 
that  I  may  be  guided  by  the  same  motive  with  him,  and 
that,  whatever  else  I  may  fail  of  accomplishing,  I  may 
help,  in  some  measure,  to  diffuse  a  spirit  of  unprejudiced 
inquiry  and  christian  kindness,  that   I  am  encouraged  to 
proceed. 


LETTER  II. 

Mv  RESPECTED  FRIENDS, 

The  Author,  who  speaks  in  your  name,  has  at  length, 
it  seems,  obtained  satisfaction,  as  to  the  propriety  of  hav- 
ing a  creed,  or  confession  of  faith.  In  his  sermon,  he  has 
expressly  given  to  the  public  the  opinions  which  Unita- 
rians embrace,  in  distinction  from  the  opinions,  common- 
ly called  Orthodox.  The  design  is  just  and  honorable. 
I  am  utterly  unable  to  conceive,  what  valid  objection 
there  can  be  against  the  attempt  of  any  denomination  of 
Christians,  to  make  the  public  acquainted  with  their  views 
on  religious  subjects ;  or,  in  other  words,  to  exhibit  the 
articles  of  their  faith.  The  thing  is  evidently  proper  in 
itself,  and  often  necessary,  though  liable  to  abuse.  With 
so  respectable  an  example  before  you,  I  trust  you  will 
be  free  from  any  further  difficulties  on  this  subject,  and 
will  proceed,  as  occasion  may  require,  to  correct  any 
mistaken  apprehensions  which  the  public  may  entertain, 
as  to  your  opinions,  and  to  give  them  a  just  view  of  what 
you  believe  to  be  the  Christian  religion.  You  owe  this 
to  the  community.  You  owe  it  to  yourselves.  And  it 
is  obvious,  that  justice,  in  this  respect,  can  be  rendered 
to  you  by  none,  but  yourselves.  Other  men,  especially 
those  who  differ  from  you,  cannot  be  competent  to  make 
known  your  faith,  any  farther  than  they  are  instructed 
and  authorized  by  you.  Doubtless  you  have  felt  that 
you  have  had  reason  to  complain  of  the  incorrectness  of 
some  Orthodox  writers,  who  have  undertaken  to  make 
a  statement  of  your  views.  It  is  with  manifest  proprie- 
ty, that  you  have  now  claimed  the  right,  and  through 
him,  who  acts  as  your  organ  of  communication,  have  ex- 


ercised  the  right,  of  declaring  jour  own  opinions.  If  you 
are  just  to  yourselves,  you  will  not  stop  here.  Whenev- 
er others  impute  to  you  opinions,  which  you  do  not 
entertain,  or  deny  to  you  those,  which  you  do  entertain; 
and  whenever  they  are  doubtful  as  to  your  faith,  or  in 
any  way  misrepresent  it  ;  you  will  feel  that,  of  right,  it 
belongs  to  you  to  interpose,  and  to  do  yourselves  jus- 
tice. And  you  would  think  it  a  gross  violation  of  the 
rules  of  christian  candor,  for  any  man  to  declare  your 
opinions  to  be  different  from  your  own  serious  declara- 
tion.— Grant  me,  and  those  with  whom  I  have  the  hap- 
piness to  be  united  in  opinion,  the  same  right,  which  you 
so  justly  claim  for  yourselves, — the  right  of  forming  and 
declaring  our  own  opinions,  and  of  being  believed,  when  we 
declare  them.  We  have  a  just  claim  to  the  last,  as  well 
as  to  the  first,  unless  there  are  substantial  reasons  to 
question  our  veracity. 

By  the  diligent  application  of  our  rational  powers  to 
the  study  of  the  Scriptures,  with  the  best  helps  which 
have  been  afforded  us,  we  have  arrived  at  some  sober, 
settled  views  on  the  subjects  of  religion.  These  views 
we  wish,  for  various  reasons,  to  declare.  And  if  we 
would  declare  them  justly,  we  must  declare  them  in  our 
own  language,  and  do  what  is  in  our  power  to  make  that 
language  intelligible  to  all.  Where  the  meaning  of  the 
terms  employed  is  doubtful,  or  obscure  ;  it  belongs  to  us 
to  give  the  necessary  explanations.  Where  the  terms 
are  liable  to  be  understood  with  greater  latitude,  than 
comports  with  our  views  ;  it  belongs  to  us  to  give  the 
necessary  limitations.  And  where  our  positions,  in  any 
respect  whatever,  need  modifying;  it  belongs  to  us  to 
modify  them. — Further.  It  is  certainly  reasonable  to 
expect,  when  dealing  with  men  of  candid,  liberal  minds, 
that  the  language  which,  in  any  case,  we  use  to  express 


10 

our  faith,  will  be  understood,  not  in  the  sense  which,  tit- 
ken  by  itself,  it  would  possibly  bear,  nor  in  the  sense 
which  others  might  be  inclined,  for  party  purposes,  to 
put  upon  it, — but  precisely  according  to  our  explanations. 
These  explanations,  you  will  understand,  do  as  really 
make  a  part  of  the  proper  enunciation  of  our  faith,  as 
the  words  which  form  the  general  proposition.  Nothing 
can  be  more  obviously  just  than  all  this,  especially  *n 
relation  to  a  subject,  which  is  of  a  complex  nature,  or 
of  difficult  illustration. 

With  respect  to  this  point  of  equity  and  honor,  1  have 
a  few  remarks  to  make  on  the  Sermon  now  under  con- 
sideration. The  Author  informs  the  public,  what  opinions 
he,  and  those  who  agree  with  him,  embrace,  and  what 
they  reject.  This  he  has  a  right  to  do.  Considering 
the  circumstances  of  the  case,  he  ought  to  do  it.  Nor 
can  any  one  doubt  that  he  is  qualified  to  do  it  in  the  best 
manner.  But  he  goes  farther.  He  undertakes  to  give  an 
account  of  my  creed,  and  the  creed  of  others  with  whom 
I  agree.  This  is  a  more  delicate  task.  In  this  he  is 
evidently  liable  to  mistake  ;  and  after  all  he  may  say 
on  the  subject,  we  may  find  it  necessary  to  speak  for 
ourselves.  If  the  account  he  gives  of  our  faith  is  not 
given  in  our  language,  and  with  our  explanations  and 
modifications, — certainly  if  not  given  in  a  manner  which 
corresponds  with  our  real  opinions ;  we  must  notice  the 
incorrectness.  Most  of  all  shall  we  have  reason  for  some 
animadversion  upon  him,  if  he  adopts,  in  any  measure, 
that  mode  of  representation,  which  men  usually  adopt, 
who  wish  to  make  the  opinions  of  their  opponents  ap- 
pear as  exceptionable  and  absurd  as  possible. 

So  far  as  this  sermon  shall  come  under  review,  my 
remarks  will  relate  chiefly  to  two  points.  The  first  is. 
its  affirming  that  certain  opinions  belong  peculiarly  and  ex- 


11 

dusiveiy  to  Unitarians,  when  in  fact  they  are  held  by  the 
Orthodox.  The  second  is,  the  misrepresentations  it  makes 
of' the  opinions  which  the  Orthodox  entertain,  and  of  the  rea- 
soning commonly  used  to  support  them.  These  two  points 
cannot  be  kept  perfectly  distinct  in  every  part  of  the 
discussion  ;  but  it  will  be  sufficiently  evident  to  which  ray 
observations  relate.  For  the  present  I  shall  beg  your 
attention  to  the  first. 

Heretofore,  it  has  been  common  for  Unitarians  in 
this  country,  and,  if  I  mistake  not,  for  this  Author  him- 
self, to  assert  that,  in  respect  of  religious  opinions,  there 
is  no  essential  difference  between  them  and  the  Orthodox. 
For  the  sake  of  preventing  disunion  and  strife,  they 
have  seemed  to  think  it  desirable,  that  the  difference 
should  be  made  to  appear  as  small  as  possible.  Buf 
from  the  tenor  of  this  discourse,  one  would  be  apt  to 
suppose  that  this  Author's  judgment  or  feelings  had 
changed,  and  that  he  thought  some  important  end  was  to 
be  answered,  by  making  the  difference  between  the  two 
parties  as  wide  as  possible.  If  this  is  a  matter  of  fact,  it 
is  easy  to  see  how  it  may  have  occasioned  some  of  the 
mistakes,  into  which  he  has  been  led. 

In  the  Sermon,  p.  3,  he  declares  what  regard  he  and 
his  particular  friends  feel  for  the  Bible,  and  the  princi- 
ples of  interpretation,  by  which  they  govern  themselves 
in  determining  what  doctrines  it  contains. — "  We  regard 
the  Scriptures,"  he  says,"  as  the  record  of  God's  succes- 
sive revelation  to  mankind,  and  particularly  of  the  last 
and  most  perfect  revelation  of  his  will  by  Jesus  Christ, 
Whatever  doctrines  seem  to  us  to  be  clearly  taught  in 
the  Scriptures  we  receive  without  reserve  or  exception." 
— It  is  implied  in  what  he  says,  that  this  sentiment  of 
reverence  for  the  Scriptures  is  peculiar  to  Unitarians. 
For  he  first  expresses  his  design  to  lav  before  his  hear- 


12 

ers,  "  some  of  the  distinguishing  opinions  of  that  class  of 
Christians,"  in  whose  name  he  speaks,  and  then  at  the 
close  says,  that  he  has  given  their  '•'  distinguishing  views  ;5't 
that  is,  their  views  in  distinction  from  those  of  the  Or- 
thodox.— I  ask  then,  is  it  so  ?  Is  this  high  veneration 
for  the  Scriptures  peculiar  to  Unitarians  ? — Do  not  the 
Orthodox  uniformly  declare  their  reverence  for  the  Bi- 
ble, and  their  readiness  to  submit  to  all  its  instructions  ? 
Do  they  not  embrace  that  system  of  doctrines,  which  is 
peculiar  to  them,  purely  because  they  are  convinced  it 
is  contained  in  the  word  of  God,  and  because  with  this 
conviction,  they  cannot  reject  it,  without  disrespect  to 
that  word  ? — Read  their  confessions  of  faith,  their  sys- 
tems of  Divinity,  their  Commentaries,  Sermons,  cate- 
chisms, and  books  of  devotion,  and  then  say,  whether 
they  do  not  manifest  as  high  a  regard  for  the  sacred 
volume,  as  this  Author  expresses? — Why  then  should  it 
be  signified,  that  this  veneration  for  the  Bible  is  among 
those  things,  which  distinguish  Unitarians  from  the  Or- 
thodox ? — -Such  a  representation  must  certainly  appear 
somewhat  unaccountable  to  one,  who  knows  what  opin- 
ions have  generally  been  avowed  and  defended  by 
these  two  parties,  respecting  the  regard  which  is  due  to 
the  Holy  Scriptures. 

As  to  these  principles  of  interpretation,  there  is  no 
need  of  adding  any  thing  to  what  has  been  written  by 
my  Reverend  Colleague.  You  perceive  that  these  prin- 
ciples are  not  peculiar  to  Unitarians.  They  are  substan- 
tially the  principles  of  the  Orthodox;  so  that,  if  you 
adopt  them,  the  question  between  us  is  not,  as  would 
appear  from  the  Sermon,  whether  the  principles  are  to 
be  admitted  ;  but  to  what  conclusions  will  they  coduct  us, 
when  fairly  applied  to  the  interpretation  of  Scripture. 


13 

In  relation  to  this  point,  the  Author  does  indeed 
seem  to  make  a  concession  in  favor  of  others. — "  Wc 
do  not  announce  these  principles,"  he  says,  "  as  original 
or  peculiar  to  ourselves." — But  immediately  he  takes 
occasion  to  follow  his  opponents  with  a  train  of  reproach- 
ful insinuations,  signifying,  that  although  they  occasional- 
ly adopt  these  principles,  they  vehemently  decry  them, 
when  their  cause  requires;  that  they  willingly  avail  them- 
selves of  reason,  when  it  can  be  pressed  into  the  service 
of  their  own  party,  and  only  complain  of  it,  when  its 
weapons  wound  themselves  ;  that  they  violate  the  fun- 
damental rules  of  reasoning,  sacrifice  the  plain  to  the 
obscure,  &c. 

Under  the  same  head  I  might  place  the  following 
remarks  of  this  Author. — "God's  wisdom  is  a  pledge, 
that  whatever  is  necessary  for  us,  and  necessary  for  sal- 
vation, is  revealed  too  plainly  to  be  mistaken,  and  too 
consistently  to  be  questioned  by  a  sound  and  upright 
mind.  It  is  not  a  mark  of  wisdom,  to  use  an  unintelligi- 
ble phraseology,  and  to  confuse  and  unsettle  the  intel- 
lect by  appearances  of  contradiction." — Here  also  he 
evidently  means  to  express  sentiments,  which  belong  pe- 
culiarly to  his  own  party. — I  cannot  but  think  it  strange, 
that  it  did  not  occur  to  his  recollection,  that  the  plainness 
and  intelligibleness  of the  Scriptures  on  all  essential  points 
is  a  principle,  tor  which  the  Orthodox  in  New  England 
have  uniformly  contended  with  great  zeal,  even  in  their 
controversy  with  Unitarians. 

Under  the  second  head  of  his  discourse,  the  Author 
undertakes  "  to  state  some  of  the  views  which  Unitari- 
ans derive  from  the  sacred  book,  particularly  those 
which  distinguish  them  from  other  Christians." — It  will 
be  to  my  purpose  just  to  notice  the  first  doctrine  he 
states,   though  it  has  been  remarked  upon   so  satjsfac- 


14 

torily  in  the  publication  above  named.  This  is  the 
unity  of  God  ;  which  the  Author  represents  as  a  doc- 
trine peculiar  to  his  party.  After  reading  his  remarks, 
and  the  remarks  of  other  Unitarians  on  this  subject,  who 
would  expect  to  find,  that  all  respectable  writers  on  the 
side  of  Orthodoxy  have  strenuously  asserted  the  unity  of 
God,  as  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  revelation,  and  have 
declared,  times  without  number,  that  they  could  admit 
no  views  of  the  divine  character  inconsistent  with  this  ? 
Who  would  expect  to  find  that,  in  all  Confessions  of  faith 
written  by  Trinitarians,  the  unity  of  God  is  one  of  the  first 
doctrines  which  is  asserted,  and  in  all  their  systems  of 
Divinity,  one  of  the  first,  which  is  distinctly  and  largely 
defended  ? — Truly,  my  respected  friends,  this  doctrine 
is  as  important  in  our  view,  as  it  can  be  in  yours.  And 
we  could  not  in  reality  have  more  reason  to  charge 
Unitarian  Authors  with  injustice,  should  they  represent 
us  as  denying  the  existence  of  God,  than  we  have,  when 
they  represent  us  as  denying  his  unity. 

But  we  proceed  to  another  point,  on  which  this  Au- 
thor lays  still  greater  stress. — "  We  believe,"  he  says, 
"  in  the  moral  perfection  of  God. — We  value  our  views  of 
Christianity  chiefly,  as  they  assert  his  amiable  and  ven- 
erable attributes." — From  the  professed  object  of  the 
discourse,  and  the  language  here  employed,  it  appears, 
that  the  Author  makes  it  the  grand  characteristic  of 
Unitarianism  in  distinction  from  Orthodoxy,  that  it  as- 
serts the  moral  perfection  of  God. — But  is  this  represen- 
tation, as  to  the  grand  distinction  between  the  parties, 
according  to  truth?  Is  it  a  representation,  which  he  is 
authorized  to  make  ? — When  the  most  eminent  Divines 
and  most  enlightened  Christians,  who  have  at  any  time 
embraced  the  common  doctrines  of  Orthodoxy, — Luther, 
Calvin,  Boyle,  Hale,  Baxter,  Doddridge,  Watts,  the  Ed- 


15 

wardses,  tiie  Matthers,  the  Coopers,  and  multitudes,  not 
to  be  numbered,  of  the  same  general  faith,  unite  in  de- 
claring expressly,  and  constantly,  that  they  believe  in  the 
moral  perfection  of  God,  that  they  ascribe  to  him  infinite 
justice,  goodness,  and  holiness,  and  continually  adore  his 
amiable  and  venerable  attributes  ; — who  is  it  that  thinks 
himself  entitled  to  look  down  upon  this  host  of  worthies, 
and  reply, — "  it  is  very  possible  to  speak  of  God  mag- 
nificently, and  to  think  of  him  meanly  ;  to  apply  to  his 
person  high  sounding  epithets,  and  to  his  government, 
principles  which  make  him  odious.  The  heathens  cal- 
led Jupiter  the  greatest  and  the  best ;  but  his  history 
was  black  with  cruelty  and  lust." — I  make  use  of  no 
high  coloring.  This  is  the  reply,  which  the  Author  of 
the  sermon  makes,  actually,  and  in  so  many  words,  to 
the  most  serious  professions  of  the  Orthodox,  whoever 
they  may  be,  as  to  their  belief  in  the  moral  perfection  of 
God.  If  he  does  not  mean  to  apply  what  I  have  quot- 
ed, to  the  Orthodox,  he  has  lost  sight  of  the  object  of 
his  discourse,  and  his  subsequent  reasoning,  as  you  will 
see  in  a  moment,  is  wholly  impertinent. 

In  another  form,  he  afterwards  repeats  insinuations 
of  the  same  sort.  "  We  believe,"  he  says, — "  We"  em- 
phatically, and  by  way  of  distinction  from  the  Orthodox, 
— "  We  believe  that  in  no  being  is  the  sense  of  right  so 
strong,  so  omnipotent,  as  in  God.  We  believe  that  his 
almighty  power  is  entirely  submitted  to  his  perception 
of  rectitude. — It  is  not  because  he  is  our  Creator  mere- 
ly, but  because  he  created  us  for  good  and  holy  purpos- 
es ;  it  is  not  because  his  will  is  irresistible,  but  because 
his  will  is  the  perfection  of  virtue,  that  we  pay  him  al- 
legiance. We  cannot  bow  before  a  being,  however  great 
and  powerful,  who  governs  tyrannically.  We  respect 
nothing  but  excellence,  whether  on  earth  or  in  heaven." 


16 

— Now  the  whole  body  of  enlightened  Christians,  who 
embrace  the  common  orthodox  faith,  give  their  united 
testimony  to  the  same  truths,  and  declare  their  venera- 
tion and  love  for  a  God  of  the  same  amiable  character. 
In  their  creeds,  systems,  sermons,  psalmody,  and  pray- 
ers, they  abundantly  assert  these  views  respecting  the 
moral  perfection  of  God.  They  have  asserted  them  con- 
tinually, and  publicly.  They  have  taught  them  to  their 
children.  They  have  repeated  them  in  a  thousand 
forms. — And  yet  this  author,  speaking  in  your  name 
too,  feels  himself  entitled  to  say  to  them  all  in  reply; — 
"  It  is  very  possible  to  speak  of  God  magnificently,  and 
to  think  of  him  meanly. — Your  system  takes  from  us  our 
Father  in  heaven,  and  substitutes  for  him  a  being,  whom 
we  cannot  love  if  we  would,  and  whom  we  ought  not  to 
love  if  we  could." — Candor  and  liberality  of  mind  are  vir- 
tues which  Unitarians  have  considered  peculiarly  honora- 
ble, and  which  they  have  appeared  ambitious  to  advance 
to  the  highest  degree  of  influence.  I  would  just  inquire, 
whether  these  virtues  are  likely  to  be  improved,  or  to  ac- 
quire greater  influence,  either  among  Unitarians,  or  the 
Orthodox,  by  such  language  as  this  Author  uses  respect- 
ing his  opponents, — language  apparently  expressive  of 
real  conviction,  and  characterized  bv  strength  and  ele- 
gance, but  unfortunately  wanting  in  justice  and  truth. — 
We  claim  the  right  of  thinking  for  ourselves,  and  of  de- 
claring what  we  think.  But  according  to  the  principle 
which  seems  to  govern  this  writer's  pen,  there  would  be 
no  possibility  of  cur  ever  making  a  declaration  of  our 
opinions,  which  would  be  entitled  to  credit.  For  sup- 
pose wc  should  profess  our  full  assent  to  the  strongest 
propositions  of  this  author  respecting  the  moral  perfec- 
tion of  God  ;  suppose  we  should  say  the  very  things 
which  he  says,  in  the  same  forms,  and  in  different  forms, 


17 

and  should  enlarge  upon  them,  and  carry  them  into  their 
practical  uses,  and  should  show  by  our  conduct,  that 
such  are  our  sober  views  of  the  divine  character;  he 
could  still  meet  all  this  with  the  reply  ; — "  It  is  possible 
to  apply  to  God's  person  high  sounding  epithets,  and  to 
his  government,  principles  which  make  him  odious.  The 
heathens  called  Jupiter  the  greatest  and  the  best;  but 
his  history  was  black  with  cruelty  and  lust." — If  the 
picture,  which  this  Author  has  drawn  of  our  opinions  on 
this  subject  were  chargeable  with  only  a  little  misrepre- 
sentation ; — or  if  it  were  ever  so  great  a  misrepresenta- 
tion on  a  subject  of  no  considerable  importance  ;  it  would 
be  worthy  of  little  notice.  But  it  is,  if  I  mistake  not,  a 
great  and  total  misrepresentation,  on  a  subject  of  vital 
consequence  to  religion,  both  theoretic  and  practical. 
And  every  man,  and  every  child,  who  has  received  his 
impression  from  this  sermon,  as  to  the  views  of  the  Or- 
thodox on  the  subject  now  under  consideration,  has  been 
led  into  a  palpable  and  total  mistake  as  to  a  matter  of 
fact, — a  matter  of  fact,  concerning  which  the  Orthodox 
must  be  considered  the  best,  and  the  only  competent 
judges.  To  them  therefore  I  appeal.  And  I  am  sure 
they  will  be  sensible  of  the  truth  of  what  I  say,  and  will 
be  compelled,  from  a  sense  of  justice  to  themselves,  to 
declare,  that,  however  free  from  blame  the  motives  of 
this  Author  may  have  been,  the  representation  he  has 
here  made  of  their  views,  is  totally  incorrect, — that  it  is 
false  throughout,  and  in  the  highest  degree. 


LETTER  II f. 

My  respected  friends, 

I  wish  you  not  to  infer  from  any  thing  contained 
in  the  foregoing  letter,  nor  from  the  general  aspect 
of  it,  that  I  am  desirous  of  avoiding  that  kind  of  investi- 
gation, which  the  Author  of  the  sermon  has  represented. 
as  necessary  in  this  case. — "  We  cannot,"  he  remarks, 
"judge  of  men's  real  ideas  of  God  from  their  general 
language. — We  must  inquire  into  their  particular  views 
of  his  purposes,  of  the  principles  of  his  administration, 
and  of  his  disposition  towards  his  creatures." — To  this 
mode  of  proceeding  I  cheerfully  accede.  Accordingly, 
I  will  not  ask  you  to  rest  ultimately  on  my  bare  assertion, 
that  Unitarians  give  an  incorrect  account  of  our  opinions, 
nor  upon  my  general  declaration,  that  we  believe  in  the 
moral  perfection  of  God. — That  you  may  be  under  the 
best  advantages  to  judge,  whether  we  do  in  fact,  believe 
in  the  moral  perfection  of  God,  it  appears  indispensable 
that  I  should  state,  summarily,  what  particular  views  we 
entertain  of  God's  character, — "  of  the  principles  of  his 
administration,  and  of  his  disposition  towards  his  crea- 
tures."— For  the  correctness  of  the  statement  I  shall  now 
make,  I  must  refer  you  to  the  writings  of  those  Orthodox 
Divines,  who  are  the  most  judicious,  and  the  most  gen- 
erally approved. 

Views  of  the  Orthodox  respecting  the  moral  character 
and  government  of  God. 

The  sentiment,  which  forms  the  basis  of  our  system, 
is,  that  God  is  love.  This  declaration  of  Scripture  we 
understand  in  its  plain  and  obvious  sense,  and  believe  if 
happily  expresses  the  whole  moral  character  of  God.— 


19 

He  is  a  Being  of  infinite  and  perfect  benevolence  ; — benevr 
olence  without  mixture,  and  without  variation.  This  is  the 
disposition  of  God  toward  his  creatures;  the  disposition 
which  prompted  him  to  create,  and  which  prompts  him 
to  govern.  The  object  of  benevolence,  or  goodness,  is, 
to  do  good,  to  promote  real  happiness.  The  object  of 
infinite  benevolence  must  be  to  promote  the  highest  de- 
gree of  happiness. — As  to  the  ways,  in  which  God  will 
secure  the  greatest  amount  of  happiness  to  his  intelli- 
gent creation,  we  can  know  nothing,  except  what  God  is 
pleased  to  reveal.  So  far  as  our  duty  or  comfort  is  con- 
cerned, he  has  given  us  instruction.  According  to  the 
Scriptures,  the  grand  means,  by  which  God  will  promote 
the  happiness  of  his  kingdom,  is  the  administration  of  a 
moral  government.  Such  a  government,  implies  a  law,  en- 
forced by  proper  sanctions  ;  that  is,  by  the  promise  of 
good  to  the  obedient,  and  the  threat  of  evil  to  the  dis- 
obedient. These  promises  and  threats,  being  necessary 
parts  of  a  benevolent  moral  government,  are  expressions 
of  the  divine  aoodncss.  So  is  the  execution  of  them. 
Thus,  the  proper  punishment  of  the  disobedient,  as  it  is 
essential  to  the  administration  of  a  perfect  moral  gov- 
ernment, is,  in  reality,  an  act  of  goodness, — an  expression 
of  God's  benevolent  regard  to  his  kingdom.  When 
there  is  occasion  for  it,  a  good  father  will  punish.  He 
may  punish  not  only  consistently  with  his  being  good,  but 
because  he  is  good.  God  is  a  father  to  his  kingdom ;  and 
will,  therefore,  show  his  displeasure  against  that  which 
tends  to  injure  that  kingdom. — As  to  the  degree  and  du- 
ration of  the  punishment,  which  will  be  inflicted  on 
transgressors,  we  are,  of  ourselves,  wholly  incompetent 
to  judge ;  for  the  obvious  reason,  that  we  arc  not  capa- 
ble of  knowing  what  the  present  and  future  interests  of 
a  kingdom,  so  extensive,  will  require.      We  believe  thnf. 


20 

according  to  the  Scriptures,  God  will  inflict  on  the 
wicked  a  great  and  everlasting  punishment.  But,  so 
far  as  reasoning  is  concerned,  we  believe  this,  as  a 
consequence  of  believing,  that  God  will  feel  and  manifest 
displeasure  against  sin  in  proportion  to  the  strength  of 
the  love,  which  he  feels  for  his  kingdom.  In  other 
words,  we  believe  he  will  inflict  on  the  disobedient  that 
very  punishment,  which  they  deserve,  and  which,  He  be- 
ing judge,  the  welfare  of  his  kingdom  renders  necessary. 
We  consider  the  demerit  of  sin  to  be  great,  in  proportion 
to  the  moral  excellence  of  God,  against  whom  it  is  com- 
mitted, and  to  the  value  of  those  interests,  which  it  aims 
to  destroy.  Here  you  see  why  we  view  punitive  justice. 
as  a  branch  of  benevolence,  an  exercise  of  goodness.  As 
God  is  a  moral  Governor,  and  the  Guardian  of  the  inter- 
ests of  the  creation,  the  want  of  justice  in  punishing  of- 
fences would  betray  the  want  of  goodness.  Thus  we  be- 
lieve, as  this  Author  informs  us  Unitarians  believe, — that 
the  justice  of  God  "  is  the  justice  of  a  good  being,  dwel- 
ling in  the  same  mind,  and  acting  in  harmony  with  per- 
fect benevolence."  He  represents  the  belief,  "  that  jus- 
tice and  mercy  are  intimate  friends,  breathing  the  same 
spirit,  and  seeking  the  same  end,"  as  peculiar  to  Unita- 
rians ;  though  it  is  in  truth  the  general  belief  of  the  Or- 
thodox.— But  in  case  of  transgression,  justice  and  mercy 
must  seek  the  same  end  in  different  ways.  In  the  exer- 
cise of  justice,  God  seeks  the  happiness  of  his  kingdom 
by  punishing  an  offence  ; — in  the  exercise  of  mercy,  or 
grace,  by  forgiving  an  offence.  This  Author  says, "  God's 
mercy,  as  we  understand  it,  desires  strongly  the  happi- 
ness of  the  guilty."  We  believe  the  same.  But  he 
adds  a  condition.  "  God's  mercy  desires  strongly  the 
happiness  of  the  guilty,  but  only  through  their  penitence" 
— We  go  farther.     We  believe,  indeed,  that  repentance 


21 

is  essential  to  the  happiness  of  the  guilty;  but  we  be- 
lieve also,  because  we  are  so  taught  in  the  Scriptures, 
that  repentance  itself,  without  the  death  of  a  Mediator, 
could  be  of  no  avail.  To  forgive  sin  in  any  other  way, 
than  through  the  shedding  of  blood,  would  not  consist 
with  a  due  regard  to  "  the  interests  of  virtue,"  and  so. 
to  use  this  Author's  language,  "  would  be  incompatible 
with  justice,  and  also  with  enlightened  benevolence/' 
On  the  other  hand,  we  think  it  equally  clear,  that  the 
happiness  of  the  impenitent  would  be  not  only  inconsist- 
ent with  the  divine  perfections,  but  in  the  nature  of 
things  impossible. 

We  believe,  as  sincerely  as  Unitarians  do,  in  the  pa- 
ternal character  of  God.  You  "  ascribe  to  him,*'  as  this 
Author  informs  us,  "  not  only  the  name,  but  the  disposi- 
tions, and  principles  of  a  father.''1  With  the  qualifica- 
tions which  the  divine  perfection  renders  necessary,  we 
do  the  same. — The  language  refers  to  the  dispositions 
of  a  human  father.  These  dispositions  belong  to  God, 
-90  Jar  as  is  consistent  with  his  infinite  perfection.  It  is 
plain,  that  the  dispositions  of  God,  and  the  conduct  flow- 
ing from  them  cannot,  in  all  respects,  resemble  the  dis- 
positions and  conduct  of  a  human  father.  The  nature 
of  a  human  father,  and  the  relation  he  sustains  to  his 
children,  have  but  an  imperfect  analogy  to  the  nature  of 
God,  and  the  relation  he  sustains  to  his  creatures.  From 
this  we  conclude,  that  his  treatment  of  his  creatures  can- 
not be  fully  represented  by  the  treatment,  which  a  hu- 
man father  gives  his  children.  Permit  me  to  illustrate 
this  by  a  few  examples. — What  human  father,  possessing 
even  a  common  degree  of  paternal  kindness  and  compas- 
sion, would  ever  treat  his  children,  as  God  treated  his 
rational  offspring,  when  he  destroyed  the  world  by  a  del- 
uge, or  Sodom  by  fire,  or  when  he  caused  the  earth  to 


22 

open  and  swallow  up  the  company  of  Korah?  Would 
a  compassionate  father  drown  his  children,  or  consume 
them  by  fire,  or  bury  them  alive  in  the  earth  ? — God 
suffers  his  rational  creatures,  even  harmless  children,  to 
die  of  hunger,  or  of  sickness,  or  to  be  destroyed  by  some 
act  of  cruelty.  Could  a  human  father  stand  and  see  his 
children  die  thus,  when  it  was  in  the  power  of  his  hand 
to  afford  relief? — I  mention  these  among  a  thousand  in- 
stances, as  proof,  that  the  analogy  between  God  and  a 
human  father,  though  a  very  striking  and  delightful  one, 
is  not  perfect,  and  may  be  carried  too  far.  Most  certain- 
ly it  is  carried  too  far  by  those,  who  undertake  to  prove 
what  God  will  do  or  will  not  do,  as  to  the  punishment  of 
the  wicked  in  the  future  world,  by  the  consideration,  that 
he  is  metaphorically  called  a  father.  The  analogy  implied 
in  this  metaphor  must  be  guarded,  and  kept  within  due 
limits,  as  carefully  as  the  analogy  implied  in  the  meta- 
phors, by  which  God  is  called  a  fire,  a  man  of  war,  &c. 
It  is  not  necessary  here  particularly  to  exhibit  the  prin- 
ciples, Avhich  we  apply  in  the  interpretation  of  meta- 
phorical language.  I  will  only  say,  in  short,  that  we  can 
be  in  no  danger  of  mistake,  when  we  fix  upon  the  analo- 
£T,  which  is  suggested  by  the  metaphor  itself,  and  by 
the  manifest  design  of  the  writer,  and  limit  the  analogy, 
as  we  do  in  common  cases,  by  the  knowledge  we  have  ob- 
tained  of  the  subject  from  other  sources. On  these 

principles,  the  soundness  of  which  will  not  be  called  in 
question,  we  look  to  God  as  a  father  ;  we  love  him  as 
a  father  ;  we  trust  in  him  as  a  father.  We  believe  he 
lias  a  paternal  affection  for  his  rational  offspring,  and 
takes  delight,  as  a  father  does,  in  promoting  their  wel- 
fare. Nay  more ;  we  believe  that  the  love  of  God  is 
not  only  sincere  and  durable,  like  that  of  a  father,  but  is 
free  from  all  human  imperfection,  and  distinguished  by  a 


23 

purity,  elevation,  and  activity,  infinitely  superior  to  what 
belongs  to  the  love  of  the  best  father  on  earth. 

I  cannot  do  justice  to  Orthodox  ministers  without  ad- 
ding, that  their  belief  in  the  moral  excellence  of  God  is 
not  a  matter  of  mere  speculation.  It  is  in  the  highest 
degree  practical.  They  make  the  infinite  and  immuta- 
ble goodness  of  God  the  grand  motive  to  religious  wor- 
ship. They  inculcate  it,  as  the  spring  of  all  pious  affec- 
tions. They  present  it  to  the  view  of  Christians  to  pro- 
duce higher  love,  gratitude,  and  joy.  They  present  it 
to  the  view  of  sinners,  to  show  them  the  inexcusable 
guilt  and  baseness  of  their  disaffection  to  their  Maker, 
and  to  induce  them  to  return  to  him  by  repentance. 
They  dwell  upon  the  unchangeable  love  of  God,  which 
has  a  length,  and  breadth,  and  depth,  and  height,  passing- 
all  understanding,  as  the  source  of  joy  in  prosperity,  of 
comfort  in  affliction,  and  triumph  in  death.  And  they 
lead  Christians  to  expect,  that  their  highest  enjoyments 
in  heaven  will  arise  from  the  more  glorious  display,  which 
God  will  there  make,  of  his  infinite  benignity  and  grace. 

It  would  be  great  injustice  to  Orthodox  ministers 
and  Christians,  both  in  Europe  and  America,  to  pass  over 
the  influence,  which  their  belief  in  the  divine  goodness 
has,  to  excite  benevolent  exertion.  It  is  because  they  be- 
lieve that  God  is  Iovp,  and  that  he  is  ready  to  pardon  and 
save  all  who  repent,  that  they  are  engaged  in  such  plans 
of  benevolence,  and  are  striving,  in  various  ways,  to  en- 
lighten and  convert  the  world.  In  all  these  benevolent 
efforts,  they  are  aiming  at  a  humble  imitation  of  Him, 
who  is  the  supreme  object  of  their  veneration  and  love. 

Now  when  I  consider  what  stress  the  Orthodox  lay 
upon  the  moral  perfection  of  God,  the  variety  of  way-, 
in  which  they  acknowledge  and  affirm  it,  and  the  para- 
mount influence  which   it  has  upon  thru-  conduct;   lam 


24 

not  a  little  surprised  that  any  man  should  charge  them 
with  denying  it.  It  is,  in  reality,  the  very  last  thing  they 
would  deny.  I  appeal  to  millions  of  witnesses,  who  will 
tell  you,  that  they  are  as  far  from  denying  the  moral 
perfection  of  God,  as  they  are  from  denying  that  he  exists; 
and  that  his  existence  would  not  only  cease  to  afford 
them  satisfaction,  but  would  fill  them  with  anxiety  and 
dread,  had  they  not  a  certain  belief,  that  he  is  possessed 
of  perfect  rectitude,  of  unbounded  and  unchangeable 
goodness.  And  after  the  statement  I  have  now  made, 
and  similar  statements  made  by  others,  of  the  sentiments 
of  the  Orthodox  on  this  subject ;  I  leave  it  to  you  can- 
didly to  judge,  what  occasion  the  Author  of  this  sermon 
could  have  for  saying  what  he  does,  in  the  following  pa- 
thetic passage; — "We  ask  our  opponents  to  leave  us  a 
God,  worthy  of  our  love  and  trust,  in  whom  our  moral 
sentiments  may  delight,  in  whom  our  weaknesses  and 
sorrows  may  find  refuge." 


LETTER  IV. 

My  respected  friends, 

I  would  now  ask  your  attention  more  particularly  to 
the  manner,  in  which  the  Author  of  this  sermon  attempts 
to  make  it  appear,  that  we  deny  the  moral  perfection  of 
God.  If  I  understand  him  right,  as  I  think  I  do,  he  in- 
fers ouiv  denial  of  God's  moral  perfection  from  our  "  par- 
ticular views  of  his  purposes,  of  the  principles  of  his  ad- 
ministration, and  of  his  disposition  towards  his  crea- 
tures." 

Now  if  we  admit,  for  the  present,  the  most  that  any 
one  could  desire,— -that  our  views  on  these  subjects  are. 


25 

in  reality,  inconsistent  with  the  moral  perfection  of  God , 
still  the  allegation  here  brought  against  us,  is  not  well 
supported. — I  may  really  believe  a  certain  important  doc- 
trine, though  I  believe  other  things  inconsistent  with  it. 
The  consistency  of  my  belief  is  one  thing ;  the  reality  of 
it,  another.  I  may  entertain  various  opinions,  which,  if 
examined  thoroughly,  would  appear  inconsistent  with  my 
belief  of  some  primary  truth  ; — yet  the  inconsistency  may 
not  be  apparent  to  me  ;  and  I  may  as  really  believe 
that  primary  truth,  and  act  as  much  under  its  influence, 
as  though  I  did  not  entertain  those  other  opinions.  In 
such  a  case,  though  an  opponent  might  attack  me  on 
the  ground  of  my  consistency,  he  would  not,  with  any 
justice,  represent  me  as  denying  that  primary  truth.  Ac- 
cordingly, the  most  which  this  Author  could  properly 
say,  even  on  the  admission  above  supposed,  would  be 
that  we  do  not  believe  the  moral  perfection  of  God  con- 
sistently, though  we  may  believe  it  really. 

But  can  the  Orthodox  be  justly  charged  with  en- 
tertaining opinions,  which  are,  in  fact,  inconsistent  with 
their  belief  in  the  moral  perfection  of  God  ?  this  is  the 
question  now  to  be  argued.  The  Author  of  the  sermon 
seems  to  rest  the  charge  chiefly  on  two  points  ;  first,  the 
doctrine  we  hold  as  to  the  natural  character  of  man ; 
second,  the  doctrine  we  hold,  as  to  the  manner  in  which 
God  designates  the  heirs  of  salvation. — I  shall  begin  with 
the  first. 

Here  allow  me  to  remark,  with  freedom,  on  the 
,  mode  of  reasoning  which  in  my  apprehension,  ought  to 
be  pursued  on  such  a  subject  as  this. — I  am  happy  to 
find  the  following  principle  suggested  by  the  Author  of 
the  sermon. — "  Whatever  doctrines  seem  to  us  to  be 
clearly  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  we  receive  without  re- 
serve or  exception."     Right.     But  in  relation  to  this 

4 


2(3 

subject,  lifts  lie  adhered  to  his  own  principle  ?     With  re- 
spect to  the  common  doctrine   of  man's  depravity,  the 
grand  inquiry  which  ought  to  have  engaged  his  attention, 
was  this  ; — Do  the  scriptures,  understood  according  to  just 
rules  of  interpretation,  teach  the  doctrine  ?    And  does  the 
doctrine  agree  with  facts,  made  known  by  experience  and  06- 
servation  ? — All  reasoning  a  priori,  in  this  case  especial- 
ly, is  to  be  rejected.    And  so  is  every  hypothesis,  unless 
it  is  evidently    founded  on  Scripture   and  observation. 
Independently  of  revelation,  and  well  known  facts,  we 
are  actually  incapable  of  judging,  what  the  goodness  of  God 
will  require,  as  to  the  condition  of  man  ;  or  what  maris 
character  and  state  must  be,  under  the  government  of  a  be- 
ing infinitely  wise  and  benevolent.     Our  inability  to  judge 
on  the  subject  might  be  made  evident,  from  the  utter 
impossibility  of  our  having  any  adequate  knowledge  re- 
specting either  the  infinite  perfection  of  God,  or  the  vast 
and  endless  scheme  of  his  operations.     But  without  any 
labored  argument  to  prove,  what  must  be  so  plain  to 
every  intelligent   man,   it  will  be  sufficient  for  my  pres- 
ent purpose,  merely  to  refer  to  a  iew  other  facts,  which 
arc  admitted  on  all  hands,  but  which  are  quite  as  differ- 
ent from  what  we  should  have  previously  thought  agree- 
able to  the  infinite  perfections  of  God,  as  the  moral  de- 
pravity of  man. — Who  would  have  supposed  that  a  God 
of  tender  compassion  and  unbounded  goodness  would  send 
plagues,  hurricanes,  and  earthquakes,  and  involve  mul- 
titudes of  affectionate  parents,  and  multitudes  of  lovely, 
helpless  children  in  a  sudden  and  dreadful  destruction? 
— Who  would  have  thought  that  the  Lord  of  the  uni- 
verse,   who  has  an  absolute  control  over  all  creatures 
and  all  events,  would  suffer  the  cruelties  and  horrors  of 
the  Slave-trade  to  exist  for  so  long  a  time  ? — These  are 
great  difficulties.     But  there  is  one  still  greater  ;  name- 


27 

ly;  that  the  God  of  love,  who  delights  in  mercy,  and  ivouhl 
have  all  men  to  be  saved,  and  who  has  given  his  Son  to  die 
for  the  redemption  of  the  world,  should,  after  all,  sitffer  the 
greater  part  of  the  world  to  live  and  die  without  any  knowl- 
edge of  the  Savior. — These  facts,  which  are  known  to  all, 
are  as  far  from  being  agreeable  to  what  we  should  nat- 
urally imagine  the  infinite  goodness  of  God  would  dictate., 
as  the  fact,  that  men  are  subjects  of  moral  depravity. 
But  our  being  unable,  by  the  mere  exercise  of  reason,  to 
discover  the  consistency  between  these  facts  and  the  infin- 
ite goodness  of  God,  is  no  proof  that  the  facts  do  not  ex- 
ist, and  no  proof  that  they  are  in  reality  inconsistent  with 
divine  goodness. — With  regard  to  all  subjects  like  these, 
the  only  mode  of  reasoning,  which  can  be  relied  upon  to 
lead  us  to  right  conclusions,  is  that  which  is  pursued  in 
the  science  of  Physics.  Regulating  ourselves  by  the 
maxims  of  Bacon  and  Newton,  we  inquire,  not  what  we 
should  expect  the  properties  and  laws  of  the  physical 
•world  would  be,  nor  whether  this  or  that  thing  can 
be  reconciled  with  the  infinite  wisdom  and  goodness  of 
God, — but  simply,  what  is  fact?  What  do  we  find  from 
observation  and  experience,  that  the  properties  and  laws  of 
nature  really  are?  This  inquiry,  to  be  philosophical,  must 
be  perfectly  unembarrassed  by  any  other  inquiry  ?  The 
moment  we  undertake  to  shape  the  conclusions  we  adopt, 
or  the  facts  we  discover,  so  as  to  make  them  conform  to 
any  preconceived  opinion  ;  we  depart  from  the  legitimate 
rule  of  philosophical  research,  and  expose  ourselves  to 
endless  perplexity  and  error.  I  might,  if  necessary,  fill 
a  volume  with  examples  of  the  vagaries  of  human  rea- 
son, flowing  from  the  neglect  of  this  grand  principle  ol 
philosophical  research.  The  importance  of  this  princi- 
ple, and  the  hurtful  consequences  of  disregarding  it,  are 
now  admitted  by  all  enlightened  philosophers.      \nd  if 


L 


28 

is  to  the  strict  observance  of  it,  that  we  owe  our  present 
advancement  in  the  science  of  Physics. 

Now  this  principle  is  as  applicable  to  the  science  of 
Theology,  as  to  the  science  of  Physics.    Indeed,  it  will  be 
found  that  in  Theology  it  is  still  more  necessary,  and  that 
any  departure  from  it,  is  attended  with  still  greater  dan- 
ger, than  in  Physics.      Theology,  as  well  as  Philosophy,  is 
founded  on  facts.     The  first  thing  to  be  done  in  either 
case,  is  to  determine,  by  the  proper  method  of  inquiry, 
what  are  the  facts,  on  which  the  science  is  founded.    In 
Philosophy,  we  learn  facts  merely  by  observation  and 
experience.    In  Theology,  we  have  additional  aid.  Rev- 
elation, as   well  as  observation  and  experience,  makes 
known  facts,  which  form  the  basis  of  Theological  reason- 
ing.    But  in  both  cases,  the  chief  object  of  inquiry,  and 
the  rule  of  reasoning  are  the  same.    We  first  inquire  for 
the  knowledge  of  facts;  and  by  reasoning  from  facts, 
we  arrive  at  general  truths.     If  in  either  case  we  neg- 
lect this  grand  principle  of  reasoning,  we  are  involved 
in  uncertainty,  confusion,  and  error.     Suppose  a  man  at- 
tempts to  prove,  from  what  he  thinks  divine  wisdom  or 
benevolence  must  dictate,  or  from  what  he  knows  of  some 
other  subject,  that  all  parts  of  the  earth  must  enjoy  equal 
illumination  and  warmth  from  the  influence  of  the  sun, 
and  must  afford  equal  advantages  and  comforts  to  the  in- 
habitants.    But  what  becomes  of  his  arguments,  when 
he  looks  abroad,  and  compares  the  rocks,  and  ice,  and 
gloomy  nights  of  Greenland,  or  the  sands  of  Arabia,  with 
the  pleasantness  and  fertility  of  some  other  parts  of  the 
earth  ?     Or  suppose,  in  any  case,  he  assumes  what  must 
be  the  nature  of  some  particular  thing,  but  afterwards 
finds,  that  the  phenomena,  which  that  thing  exhibits,  do 
not  correspond  with  his  assumption.     Shall  he  deny  or 
disregard  those  phenomena  ?     Or  shall  he  not  rather 


29 

dismiss  his  assumption  ? — Now  it  is  not  a  whit  less  un- 
philosophical,  to  admit  any  presumptive  or  hypotheti- 
cal reasoning  in  Ethics,  or  Theology,  than  in  the  science 
of  Physics. — Suppose  we  think  it  inconsistent  with  the  in- 
finite goodness  of  God,  that  he  should  create  an  order  of 
rational  beings,  and  place  them  in  such  circumstances  of 
temptation,  as  he  certainly  knew  would  be  followed  by 
their  transgression  and  ruin ;  or  that  a  God  of  infinite 
power,  who  has  all  hearts  and  all  events  in  his  hand, 
should  suffer  mankind,  through  a  hundred  generations,  to 
be  in  a  state  of  ignorance,  rebellion,  and  wretchedness, 
when  it  is  so  easy  for  him  to  prevent  it.  But  suppose 
on  further  inquiry,  we  find  in  both  cases  the  existence  of 
facts,  which  we  denied.  Shall  we  deny  them  still  ? — It 
is  true  we  may  not  be  able  to  reconcile  them  with  the 
perfections  of  God.  What  then?  Are  we  omniscient? 
Is  our  understanding  above  the  possibility  of  mistake  ? 

These  remarks  are  intended  to  simplify  the  object  of 
inquiry,  with  regard  to  the  native  character  of  man. 
They  are  intended  to  show  that,  according  to  the  just 
principles  of  reasoning  in  such  a  case,  we  have  nothing 
to  do  Avith  the  inquiry,  whether  the  common  doctrine  of 
depravity  can  consist  with  the  moral  perfection  of  God, 
or  with  any  difficulty  whatever  in  the  attempt  to  recon- 
cile them.  If  I  say,  this  doctrine  cannot  be  true,  because 
I  cannot  reconcile  it  with  the  goodness  of  God  ;  it  is  the 
same  as  saying,  /  am  an  infallible  judge,  and  my  opinion 
must  stand,  though  opposed  by  the  declarations  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  the  evidence  of  facts.  To  take  such  a  position 
of  mind  would  be  an  effectual  bar  to  conviction,  and 
render  all  reasoning  absolutely  useless.  If  we  would  reg- 
ulate our  investigations  on  this  subject  by  correct  princi- 
ples ;  we  must  reject  totally  every  prepossession  against 
the  doctrine  of  depravity,  arising  from  a  consideration  ol 


30 

the  divine  perfections,  or  from  any  thing  else,  and  must 
restrict  ourselves  to  this  single  inquiry,  what  is  true  in 
fact^  If  the  subject  is  one,  on  which  the  Scripture  un- 
dertakes to  decide  ;  the  question  is,  what  saith  the  Scrip- 
ture ?  If  experience  and  observation  cast  any  light  on 
the  subject;  the  question  is,  what  do  they  teach?  If 
when  we  pursue  our  inquiry,  we  find,  that  the  Scripture, 
interpreted  without  the  influence  of  any  prepossession, 
and  according  to  just  rules,  teaches,  that  man  is  by  na- 
ture unholy  ;  this  must,  unhesitatingly,  be  admitted  as  a 
certain  truth.  That  God  declares  it,  is  proof  enough. 
His  testimony  is  an  infinitely  better  foundation  for  our 
faith,  than  all  our  reasonings.  If  observation  and  expe- 
rience teach  the  same  truth  ;  we  are  to  admit  it  as  doub- 
ly confirmed.  As  to  the  goodness  of  God,  we  know  it 
from  other  evidence.  The  truth  under  consideration 
must,  then,  according  to  the  supposition,  be  admitted  to 
be  in  reality  consistent  with  the  goodness  of  God,  how- 
ever hard  it  may  be  for  those,  who  are  of  yesterday  and 
know  nothing,  to  elucidate  that  consistency. 

The  subject  under  consideration  is  one,  on  which  we 
are  peculiarly  liable  to  judge  erroneously,  for  the  obvi- 
ous reason,  that  we  have  a  deep  personal  concern  in  it. 
We  are  among  those,  whom  the  commonly  received  doc- 
trine arraigns,  as  polluted  and  guilty.  The  doctrine 
touches  our  character,  and  our  honor.  It  aims  a  blow 
at  our  selfesteem.  It  disturbs  our  quiet.  The  consid- 
eration of  this  circumstance  should  excite  us  to  guard 
most  vigilantly  against  that  prejudice,  discoloring  of  evi- 
dence, and  partial  judgment,  to  which  we  know  every 
man,  in  such  a  case,  is  exposed. 


LETTER  V. 

My  RESPECTED  FRIENDS, 

The  doctrine,  which  the  Orthodox  in  New  England 
hold  on  the  subject,  introduced  in  the  last  Letter,  is 
briefly  this  ;  that  men  are  by  nature  destitute  of  holiness  ; 
or  that  they  are  subjects  of  an  innate  moral  depravity  ; 
or,  in  other  words,  that  they  are  from  the  first  inclined  to 
evil,  and  that,  while  unrenewed,  their  moral  affections 
and  actions  are  wholly  wrong.  The  doctrine,  you  per- 
ceive, is  merely  the  assertion  of  a  general  fact.  I  shall 
at  present  consider  this  fact  by  itself,  entirely  unencum- 
bered with  any  question  about  the  occasion  or  the  mode 
of  it. 

It  is  far  from  my  design  to  exhibit,  in  detail,  the  ar- 
guments, by  which  this  doctrine  is  proved.  I  shall  at- 
tain my  principal  object,  if  1  succeed  in  attempting  to 
expose  a  wrong  method  of  reasoning,  and  contribute  any 
thing  towards  producing  in  those,  who  may  honor  me 
with  their  attention,  a  steady  desire  to  know  the  truth, 
and  a  disposition  to  investigate  the  subject  of  man's  nat- 
ural character,  on  right  principles,  and  without  being- 
shackled  by  unreasonable  prepossessions.  But  the  case 
seems  to  require,  that  I  should  lay  before  you,  if  not  all 
the  particular  proofs,  at  least  the  general  topics  of  ar- 
gument, on  which  I  ground  my  humbling  conclusion. — 
Here  then,  I  contend,  and  hold  myself  ready  to  demon- 
strate, that  there  is  no  principle  in  the  science  of  Phys- 
ics, which  is  established  by  evidence  more  uniform,  and 
more  conclusive,  than  the  moral  depravity  of  man.  ) 
speak  now  of  the  evidence  which  is  furnished  merely  by 
experience  and  observation,  without   looking  to  the  Bi- 


32 

ble.  The  appearances  of  human  nature,  from  infancy  to 
old  age,  and  from  the  fall  of  Adam  to  the  present  time, 
prove  a  deeprooted  and  universal  disease.  The  exist- 
ence of  this  moral  disease  is  practically  acknowledged 
by  all,  who  have  any  concern  in  the  education  of  chil- 
dren and  youth,  or  who  endeavor,  in  any  form,  to  bring 
the  actions  of  men  to  conform  to  the  rule  of  duty.  The 
strength  of  this  disease  is  made  evident  by  all  the  re- 
straints, which  parents  are  obliged  to  put  upon  their  chil- 
dren, rulers  upon  their  subjects,  and  all  men,  who  aim  at 
being  virtuous,  upon  themselves.  This  disorder  of  our 
nature  is  indicated  by  as  clear,  as  various,  and  as  uniform 
symptoms,  as  ever  indicated  the  existence  of  a  fever,  or 
a  consumption,  in  an  individual. — The  evidence  of  hu- 
man depravity  from  this  source  alone,  is  so  great,  that, 
should  I  reject  it  as  insufficient,  I  should  manifest  a 
strength  of  prejudice,  which,  I  soberly  think,  no  increase 
of  evidence  could  overcome.  And  I  would  propose  it 
as  a  serious  question,  whether,  if  any  of  us  should  stand 
by,  as  impartial  spectators,  and  see,  in  another  order  of 
beings,  the  same  indications  of  character,  which  we  see 
in  the  human  species,  we  should  hesitate  a  moment  to 
pronounce  them,  depraved. 

But  as  our  views  of  this  subject  must  depend  chiefly 
on  revelation,  I  shall  proceed  to  exhibit,  though  in  a  very 
summary  way,  the  principal  scripture  arguments,  on  which 
the  doctrine  of  man's  universal  depravity  rests.  I  shall 
first  illustrate  the  argument,  or  rather  the  principle  of 
reasoning,  from  the  Old  Testament.  For  this  purpose  I 
shall  take  a  single  passage,  which  may  stand  for  a  multi- 
tude of  the  same  nature.  Gen.  vi.  5.  "  And  God  saw 
that  the  wickedness  of  man  was  great  in  the  earth,  and  that 
every  imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  was  only  evil 
continually" 


33 

It  is  objected  to  the  argument  commonly  drawn 
from  this  text,  that  it  related  to  mankind  in  a  season 
of  uncommon  corruption,  and  not  to  mankind  at  large, 
and  that  it  is  altogether  improper  to  infer  the  charac- 
ter of  the  whole  human  race  from  the  shocking;  barbar- 
ity  and  wickedness,  which  have  been  perpetrated  in  any 
particular  age  or  country.  The  same  objection  is  thought 
to  lie  against  our  reasoning  from  any  of  the  numerous 
passages  in  the  Old  Testament,  in  which  human  wicked- 
ness is  declared  ;  namely,  that  they  relate  exclusively 
to  those  who  lived  at  particular  times,  when  iniquity 
prevailed  to  an  uncommon  degree,  and  cannot  be  appli" 
ed  to  mankind  generally. 

We  are  now  to  inquire,  whether  this  objection  is 
valid. 

The  text  quoted  from  Gen.  vi.  5,  did  indeed  relate 
to  the  corruption  of  men,  who  lived  before  the  general 
deluge.  But  we  find  substantially  the  same  testimony 
given  of  the  human  character,  soon  after  the  deluge. 
Gen.  viii.  21,  "  The  imagination  of  man's  heart  is  evil 
from  his  youth."  There  are  two  reasons  for  consider- 
ing this  as  relating  to  mankind  universally,  or  to  human 
nature.  The  first  is,  that  the  language  is  general.  "  The 
imagination  of  marts  heart  is  evil;"  not  Noah's  heart, 
nor  the  heart  of  either  of  his  sons  particularly  ;  but  man's 
heart, — the  heart  of  the  human  kind.  Thus  we  are  led 
to  consider  it,  as  the  testimony  of  God  respecting  the 
character  of  our  apostate  race.  The  second  reason  for 
this  construction  is,  that  the  curse  spoken  of  in  the  same 
verse  related  to  mankind  in  all  future  ages.  "  I  will  not 
again  curse  the  ground  any  more  for  man's  sake  ;"  that  is,  I 
will  not  at  any  future  time.  Immediately  after  the  testi- 
mony above  quoted,  God  said,  "  neither  will  I  again 
smite  any  more  every  living  thing,  as  1  have  done,"     It 


34 

was  said  in  relation  to  all  future  time.  The  description 
given  of  man's  character  must  be  understood  as  equally 
extensive  ;  "for"  or  as  it  ought,  according  to  the  best 
authorities,  and  according  to  the  obvious  sense  of  the 
passage,  to  be  rendered,  "  though  the  imagination  of 
man's  heart  is  evil  from  his  youth."  The  meaning  of 
the  whole  taken  together  is  plainly  this ;  that  God 
would  not  destroy  the  world  again  by  a  deluge,  as  he  had 
done,  though  the  character  of  mankind  generally  would 
be,  as  it  had  been. — History  shows  that  it  has  been  so 
in  fact. 

Further  to  illustrate  the  force  of  the  argument,  from 
the  Old  Testament,  and  the  weakness  of  the  objection 
against  it,  I  refer  my  readers  to  a  well  known  principle  of 
science,  namely,  that  all,ivho  belong  to  the  same  species,  have 
the  same  nature.  We  always  consider  the  actions  of  any 
part,  certainly  of  any  considerable  part  of  a  species,  as 
indicating  the  character  or  nature  of  the  whole.  And 
why  should  we  doubt  the  truth  of  this  principle  in 
relation  to  man's  moral  character,  any  more  than  in  re- 
lation to  his  physical  properties,  or  to  the  properties  of 
any  other  order  of  creatures  ?  In  all  our  treatment  of 
mankind,  and  in  all  our  maxims  of  practical  wisdom,  we 
admit  the  principle,  that  human  nature,  as  to  its  grand 
moral  features,  is  at  all  times,  and  in  all  circumstances, 
the  same.  This  is  implied  also  in  the  fact,  that  the  same 
precepts,  motives,  and  restraints, — in  a  word,  the  same 
moral  discipline  has  been  found  suitable  and  necessary 
in  all  ages. 

But  I  do  not  stop  here,  but  proceed  to  inquire,  wheth- 
er the  New  Testament,  besides  furnishing  a  new  argument 
jtself,  does  not  give  testimony  to  the  soundness  of  the 
argument  from  the  Old.  The  Psalmist,  in  Psalm  xiv.  liii. 
v.  cxl.  x.  xxxvi.  and  Isaiah,  ch.  lis.  describe  the  wicked- 


35 

tiess  which  prevailed  in  their  day. — "  They  are  corrupt ; 
they    have    done    abominable    works ;    there    is  none 
that  doeth   good.     They  are  all    gone    aside,  they  are 
together  become  filthy  ;  there  is  none  that  doeth  good, 
no,  not  one.  Their  throat  is  an  open  sepulchre.  Their  feet 
run  to  evil.  Their  thoughts  are  thoughts  of  iniquity  ;The 
way  of  peace  they  know  not;"&c.  The  objector  says,  these 
passages  described  the  corruption  of  the  Jews  in  times  of 
great  degeneracy,  and  cannot  be  considered  as  a  just  de- 
scription of  mankind  generally.  But  how  does  the  Apostle 
Paul  treat  the  subject  ?  He  takes  these  same  passages,  a 
thousand   years    afterwards,   and   applies  them,   as  de- 
scriptive  of    the    character    of    Jews     and     Gentiles. 
Rom.    iii.   9,  he  says,  referring  to  ch.  i.  and  ii.,  "  We 
have  before   proved  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  that  they 
are  all  under  sin  ;  as  it  is  written" — immediately  intro- 
ducing from  the  Old  Testament  the  texts  above  quoted, 
as  a  true  account  of  the  character  of  mankind  without, 
exception  ;  then  stating  the  end  he  had  aimed  at  in  mak- 
ing such  a  disclosure  of  the  human  character  ;    namely, 
"  that  every  mouth  may  be  stopped,  and  all  the  world  be- 
come guilty  before  God  ;"  and  then  directly  bringing  us 
to  his  final  conclusion,  that  "  by  the  deeds  of  the  law 
shall  no  flesh  be  justified  in  his  sight."     It  is  a  connected 
discourse, — an  unbroken  chain  of  reasoning.     And  unless 
the  texts,  which  the  Apostle  here  cites  from  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, are  justly  applicable  to  the  whole  race  of  man, 
"  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,"   and,  in  connexion  with  the 
preceding   part  of  his    Epistle,  are  actually  meant  by 
him,  to  be  a  description  of  "  all  the  world"  "  no  flesh"  be- 
ing excepted  ; — the  whole  reasoning  of  the  Apostle  is 
without  force  ;  his  conclusion  is  broader  than  his  prem- 
ises ;  and  the  quotations  he  makes  from  the  Scriptures 
are  not  only  no  proofs  of  what  he  wishes  to  establish,  but 


36 

have  no  kind  of  relation  to  it.  The  point  he  labors  to 
establish  is,  that  "  both  Jews  and  Gentiles" — that  "  all  the 
world  "  have  such  a  character,  that  they  cannot  be  jus- 
tified by  law.  But  what  is  their  character  ? — It  is  that 
which  is  first  described  in  the  preceding  part  of  the 
Epistle,  and  then  in  the  passages  cited  from  the  Old 
Testament.  "  We  have  before  proved  both  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  that  they  are  all  under  sin,  as  it  is  written ', 
There  is  none  that  doeth  good,  no,  not  one.  They  are 
all  gone  out  of  the  way  ;  they  are  together  become  un- 
profitable, Src."  The  Apostle  manifestly  cites  these  texts, 
for  the  very  purpose  of  describing,  still  more  particularly 
than  he  had  done,  the  character  of"  all  the  world." — It 
might  indeed  be  thought  from  the  first  part  of  verse  19, 
"whatsover  the  law  saith,  it  saith  to  them  who  are  un- 
der the  law,"  that  the  Apostle  meant  to  apply  what  he 
had  just  before  said,  to  Jews  only.  But  this  would  hard- 
ly agree  with  the  scope  of  the  passage,  which  was  to 
establish  a  general  truth  respecting  "  all  the  ivorld." 
Besides,  the  first  part  of  v.  19  will  easily  admit  a  construc- 
tion perfectly  corresponding  with  the  scope  of  the  whole 
passage.  The  Apostle  would  prove  that  all  men  are 
under  sin.  The  Jews  would  naturally  make  an  exception 
in  their  own  favor.  He  tells  them  that  there  can  be  no 
exception  ;  that  what  he  has  quoted  from  the  law,  that  is, 
from  their  own  Scriptures,  must  certainly  relate  to  Jews, 
as  well  as  to  Gentiles. — The  quotations  cannot  relate  to 
Jews  exclusively  of  Gentiles,  because  that  would  not  agree 
with  the  manner,  already  noticed,  in  which  the  quotations 
are  introduced  ; — "  We  have  proved  both  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles, that  they  are  all  under  sin ;  as  it  is  written  &c." 
Nor  does  it  so  obviously  agree  with  the  conclusion  v.  19, 
which  relates  to  "  all  the  ivorld."  Besides,  it  is  difficult 
not  to  believe  that  the  writer  of  some  of  the  Psalms 


37 

quoted,  particularly  of  the  xiv,  extended  his  views  beyond 
his  own  nation,  though  he  undoubtedly  referred  to  that 
primarily,  and  in  a  special  sense.  When  he  introduces 
that  description  of  wickedness,  which  is  quoted  by  the 
Apostle,  his  language  is  general.  "  The  Lord  looked 
down  from  heaven,  upon  the  children  of  men,  to  see  if 
there  were  any  that  did  understand."  The  Psalmist 
then  proceeds  to  give  a  description,  not,  one  would  think, 
of  the  posterity  of  Abraham  solely,  but  of  the  children  of 
men,  the  human  race,  and  says,  they  are  all  gone  aside. — 
But  we  shall  come  ultimately  to  the  same  conclusion,  if 
we  admit  that  the  passages  were  originally  intended  by 
the  Psalmist  to  relate  merely  to  his  own  nation.  For  if 
such  a  character  belonged  to  that  highly  favored  nation, 
it  must  of  course  have  belonged  to  the  rest  of  the  world. 
So  the  Apostle  decides  when,  many  ages  after,  he 
attributes  that  description  of  character  to  all  the 
world.  On  the  same  principle  the  passages  quoted 
by  him  are  applicable  to  us,  as  well  as  to  those  who  liv- 
ed in  the  time  of  Paul,  or  of  David ;  as  applicable  to  us, 
as  what  the  Apostle  says  respecting  justification,  salva- 
tion, duty,  or  any  thing  else. 

This  manner  of  quoting  texts  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  not  peculiar  to  Paul.  We  find  frequent  exam- 
ples of  it  in  the  instructions  of  Christ  himself.  The 
Prophet  Isaiah,  chap.  xxix.  13,  had  given  the  following 
description  of  the  hypocrisy  of  the  people,  who  were  con- 
temporary with  him  ;  viz.  "  that  they  drew  near  to  God 
with  their  mouth,  and  honored  him  with  their  lips,  but 
had  removed  their  hearts  far  from  him."  Jesus  quoted 
this  passage  as  applicable  to  the  Jews  in  his  day.  "  Well 
did  Esaias  prophesy  of  you  hypocrites,  as  it  is  written, 
&c."     In  the  same  manner  Christ  repeatedly  quoted  Isa. 


38 

vi.  9,  10,  as  a  true  description    of  the  obstinate  impiety 
of  those,  who  rejected  his  gospel. 

Now  this  manner  of  quoting  and  reasoning  from  Scrip- 
ture, so  often  employed  both  by  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
clearly  involves  the  principle,  which  I  stated  in  answer  to 
the  objection  ;  viz.  that  human  nature,  in  all  ages  and  cir- 
cumstances, is,  as  to  its  grand  moral  features,  the  same, 
and  that  the  dispositions  and  actions,  which  mankind  at 
any  time  exhibit,  are  real  indications  of  what  belongs  to 
the  nature  of  man  universally.  Unless  this  principle  is 
admitted,  how  can  the  Apostle  be  justified  in  making  such 
a  use  as  he  does,  of  his  citations  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ? — And  to  bring  the  subject  nearer  home,  how  can 
we  make  use  of  any  thing  which  was  said  of  the  charac- 
ter of  man,  either  in  the  Old  Testament  or  the  New,  as 
appertaining  to  those  who  live  at  the  present  day  ?  In- 
deed, how  can  any  of  the  declarations  of  the  Bible,  all 
of  which  were  made  so  many  ages  ago,  be  of  any  use 
to  us,  except  to  gratify  curiosity  ?  Whether,  therefore, 
we  consider  the  nature  of  the  case,  or  the  reasoning  of 
the  Apostle  in  Rom.  iii. ;  are  we  not  warranted  to  re- 
ceive, whatever  the  Bible  in  any  part  affirms  respecting 
the  dispositions  or  conduct  of  men,  as  applicable,  sub- 
stantially, to  men  in  all  ages  ?  If  Ave  are  not,  what  can 
we  say  to  vindicate  the  Apostle?  If  we  are,  then 
the  text  I  first  quoted  from  Genesis,  and  those  texts 
which  are  quoted  from  the  Psalms  in  Rom.  iii,  and  oth- 
er similar  texts  in  the  Old  Testament,  do  all  illustrate 
the  character,  which  now  belongs  to  man.  And  when 
we  read  in  the  Bible,  or  elsewhere,  the  highest  descrip- 
tion of  human  wickedness  in  the  old  world,  in  Sodom,  in 
Canaan,  in  Jerusalem,  in  Greece,  Rome,  or  India,  or  of 
the  wickedness  of  individuals,  as  Pharaoh,  Saul,  Jerobo- 
am, Judas,  or  the  Caasars ;    it  is  perfectly  just  and  natu- 


39 

ral  for  us  to  reflect,  such  is  human  nature ; — such  is  man- 
So  that  Orthodox  writers,  though  they  may  not,  in  all  in- 
stances, have  attended  sufficiently  to  the  groundwork  of 
their  argument,  do  in  fact  reason  in  an  unexceptionable 
manner,  when  they  undertake  to  show  what  human  na- 
ture is,  from  the  description  which  is  given  of  the  wick- 
edness of  man  in  the  Old  Testament ;  and  the  objection 
to  this  reasoning,  which  I  stated  above,  and  which  is, 
briefly,  the  objection  of  Dr.  Turnbull  and  Dr.  John  Tay- 
lor, cannot  be  considered  as  valid. 

Let  me  detain  your  attention  a  few  moments,  while 
I  hint  at  the  confirmation,  which  may  be  given  to  the 
general  principle,  asserted  above,  by  an  appeal  to  the 
sober  convictions  of  men.  They  who  are  in  the  habit  of 
comparing  their  moral  affections  and  conduct  with  the 
perfect  law  of  God,  will  have  no  difficulty  in  acknowl- 
edging, that  they  find,  in  the  various  representations  of 
human  depravity,  contained  in  the  Old  Testament,  a  true 
picture  of  themselves.  I  say  not  that  they  are  conscious 
of  having  committed  sinful  actions  in  the  same  form,  or 
indulged  sinful  passions  in  the  same  degree,  with  all  those, 
whose  crimes  are  recorded  in  the  Bible.  This  is  not 
the  case.  But  they  arc  conscious  of  having  in  their 
hearts  a  wrong  bias,  a  want  of  what  the  divine  law  re- 
quires, of  the  same  nature,  with  that  moral  depravation, 
which  has  been  exhibited  by  the  greatest  sinners.  The 
sacred  writers  impute  to  various  societies  and  individu- 
als, pride,  selfishness,  idolatry,  covetousness,  impurity, 
revenge,  falsehood,  blasphemy.  Have  we  not  discover- 
ed in  ourselves  the  root  of  all  these  vices  ?  Should  we 
not  be  liable  to  actual  excess  in  every  one  of  them,  if  we 
should  be  freed  from  restraints,  and  should  follow,  with- 
out any  counteracting  influence,  the  desires  which  natu- 
rally spring  up  in  our  heart s  ?     And  have  not  the  greafe 


40 

est  proficients  in  self-government  and  holiness  always 
been  the  most  ready  to  make  this  humiliating  confession  ? 
Even  some  of  the  heathen,  who  made  serious  attempts  to 
improve  their  own  character,  were  forced  to  acknowl- 
edge that  the  disorder  of  their  nature  was  too  stubborn 
to  be  subdued  by  them,  without  help  from  above. 

It  is  certainly  nothing  conclusive  against  the  princi- 
ple contended  for,  that  some  men  can  be  found,  who  are 
not  sensible  of  its  truth  in  relation  to  themselves.  This 
may  easily  be  accounted  for,  without  in  the  least  inval- 
idating the  principle.  For  they  may  be  altogether  in- 
attentive to  what  passes  in  their  own  minds,  and  so  may 
be  ignorant  of  themselves;  or  if  they  are  in  some  mea- 
sure attentive  to  the  operations  of  their  own  minds,  they 
may  fix  their  eye  upon  some  of  the  wrong  standards  of 
duty  which  are  set  up,  in  the  world,  and  so  may  judge 
incorrectly.  It  is  surely  no  uncommon  thing  for  men  to 
be  insensible  of  the  faults  of  their  character,  especially 
of  the  hidden  affections  of  their  hearts.  This  insensibil- 
ity, so  frequently  described  in  the  Scriptures,  is  a  mat- 
ter of  common  observation,  an(J  has  always  been  regard- 
ed, as  one  of  the  greatest  hindrances  to  the  salutary  in- 
fluence of  divine  truth. 

The  argument  from  the  Old  Testament  might  be 
extended  to  great  length,  comprising  all  the  positive  de- 
clarations there  made,  and  all  the  examples  there  exhib- 
ited, of  human  wickedness  ;  all  the  confessions  both  of 
saints  and  sinners ;  all  the  means  employed  to  subdue  the 
moral  corruption  of  men  and  hold  them  back  from  sin, 
and  every  thing  else,  which  showed  formerly,  and  which, 
consequently,  always  shows,  what  is  in  man.  They  who 
read  the  Old  Testament  with  such  views  as  the  Apos- 
tles entertained  respecting  it,  will  be  constantly  improv- 
ing their  acquaintance   with  themselves, — their  knowl- 


41 

edge  of  their  own  moral  degradation,  and  their  desire 
after  that  gracious  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which 
renews  and  exalts  the  soul. 


LETTER  VI. 

My  respected  friends, 

In  the  last  Letter,  I  confined  myself  almost  entirely 
to  the  establishment  of  a  general  principle,  and  to  the 
proof  which,  according  to  that  principle,  may  be  drawn 
from  the  Old  Testament,  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of 
man's  moral  depravity.  I  might  also  refer  to  declara- 
tions which  are  general  or  universal,  as  Jeremiah  xvii.  9, 
"  The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things,  and  desperate- 
ly wicked  ;  who  can  know  it  ?"  "  The  heart"  not  of  any 
man,  or  any  society  of  men  in  particular ;  but  of  man 
universally.  The  next  verse  confirms  this  sense.  "  I  the 
Lord  search  the  heart  ;" — the  same  heart,  as  the  one 
spoken  of  in  v.  9  ;  so  that  if,  when  the  Prophet  says,  the 
Lord  searches  the  heart,  we  are  to  understand  him  as 
meaning,  that  the  Lord  searches  the  heart  universally,  or 
the  heart  of  every  hitman  being  ;  then  also,  when  in  the  clos- 
est connexion  with  this,  he  says,  the  heart  is  deceitful  and 
wicked,  we  must  understand  him  as  meaning  that  the 
heart  universally,  or  the  heart  of  every  human  being  is  de- 
ceitful and  wicked. — This  is  the  only  sense  which  any 
man  can  give  the  text,  v.  9,  who  attends  to  its  connex- 
ion with  the  following  verse,  or  considers  what  language 
we  commonly  use  to  express  a  general  or  universal  pro- 
position. Another  passage  containing  a  universal  propo- 
sition of  like  character,  is  found  in  Eccles.  ix.  3.  "  The 
heart  of  the  sons  of  men  is  full  of  evil." 


42 

But  in  the  New  Testament  every  thing  is  invested 
with  clearer  light.  Here  we  find  evidence,  exhibited 
in  many  different  forms,  that  man,  as  a  species,  that  the 
human  kind,  is  sunk  in  sin,  and  while  unrenewed,  entire- 
ly destitute  of  holiness,  and  unfit  for  heaven.  This  evi- 
dence I  shall  now  lay  before  you,  though  it  must  be  with 
great  brevity,  and  in  reference  only  to  a  (ew  passages. 

The  first  passage,  to  which  I  would  call  your  atten- 
tion, is  found  in  the  discourse  of  Jesus  with  Nicodemus, 
John  iii.  1 — 7.  This  conversation  took  place  near  the 
beginning  of  Christ's  ministry.  About  four  thousand 
years  had  passed  away,  from  the  fall  of  man.  Those 
four  thousand  years  had  furnished  no  small  evidence  of 
the  human  character.  The  corruption  and  violence  of 
the  old  world  had  been  seen.  And  notwithstanding  the 
tremendous  purgation,  which  the  world  underwent  by 
the  general  deluge,  it  had  been  seen,  that  the  new  race, 
descending  from  righteous  Noah,  pursued  the  same 
downward  course  with  the  generations  before  the  flood. 
The  same  had  been  the  case  with  the  posterity  of  Abra- 
ham. Although  various  and  powerful  means  had  been 
used  to  restrain  men  from  wickedness  and  induce  them 
to  serve  God,  they  had  in  every  nation,  and  in  every  age, 
shown  themselves  prone  to  evil.  Jesus  knew  what  dis- 
play had  been  made  of  the  human  character  in  every 
period  of  the  world.  He  knew  what  was  in  man.  The 
grand  result  of  what  his  all  searching  eye  had  seen,  and 
then  saw,  of  the  affections  and  conduct  of  the  human  race, 
he  expressed  to  Nicodemus;  "  Except  a  man  be  born 
again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God."  The  moral 
renovation  here  spoken  of,  is  represented  as  necessary 
for  all  men.  Eow  (iyi  tig  yevv^dy}  avodev.  It  is  said  of 
any  one.  The  sense  is,  that  no  man,  no  human  being,  who 
is  not  the  subject  of  this  renovation,  can  be  a  partaker  of 


43 

the  benefits  of  Christ's  kingdom.  The  necessity  of  this 
renovation,  as  appears  afterwards,  arises  from  the  char- 
acter which  man  possesses,  in  consequence  of  his  natural 
birth.  Of  course,  it  is  necessary  for  every  child  of  Ad- 
am. "  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh,  is  flesh."  "  By 
flesh"  says  Rosenmullcr,  with  evident  propriety,  and  in 
agreement  with  commentators  generally,  "  is  meant  the 
nature  of  man, — man  with  all  his  moral  imperfection, 
subject  to  the  dominion  of  his  bodily  appetites.  And 
he  who  is  born  of  parents,  who  have  this  moral  imper- 
fection, is  like  his  parents."  All  the  children  of  men  are 
here  represented  as  having,  by  their  very  birth,  a  moral 
nature,  which  renders  them  incapable  of  enjoying  the 
blessings  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  unless  they  are  bom 
again.  This  interpretation  is  confirmed  by  all  those 
texts,  in  which  the  word  crapif,  or  Gapxixog,  flesh,  or  flesh- 
ly, is  used  to  express  the  opposite  of  that  which  is  spiritu- 
al or  holy.  The  metaphorical  expression,  being  born  again, 
must  denote  a  moral  change,  because  it  is  a  change  that 
fits  men  for  a  moral  or  spiritual  kingdom.  If  we  view 
this  passage  in  connexion  with  those,  which  represent 
repentance  and  conversion,  as  necessary  to  prepare  men 
for  Christ's  kingdom,  we  shall  see  that  being  bom  again 
denotes  a  change  of  the  same  general  character  with 
repentance  and  conversion.  It  is  then  clear,  that  this 
passage  of  Scripture,  interpreted  according  to  just  rules, 
contains  the  following  sentiment ; — that  all  men,  without 
exception,  are  by  nature,  or  in  consequence  of  their  natural 
birth,  in  such  a  state  of  moral  impurity,  as  disqualifies 
them  for  the  enjoyments  of  heaven,  unless  they  are  re- 
newed by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Rom.  v.  12.  "  Wherefore  as  by  one  man  sin  entered 
into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin,  and  so  death  passed 
upon  all  men.  for  that  all  have  sinned."     Although  this 


44 

text  must  be  allowed  to  be,  in  some  respects,  very 
obscure  ;  two  things  are  perfectly  clear.  1.  That  the 
Apostle  considered  sin,  as  the  cause  of  death,  or  the  rea- 
son why  God  sent  into  the  world  the  evils  involved  in 
the  word  death.  2.  That  as  sin  is  the  cause  of  death,  the 
extent  of  the  one  may  be  measured  by  the  extent  of  the 
other.  Determine  how  far  death  extends,  and  you  de- 
termine how  far  sin  extends.  If  a  part  of  the  human 
species  die,  a  part  are  sinners.  If  all  die,  all  are  sinners. 
"  Death  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned." 
E<£>  w,  according  to  the  judgment  of  the  most  eminent 
critics,  and  the  use  of  the  phrase  elsewhere  in  the  New 
Testament,  means  the  same  as  Sioti,  eo  quod,  quia, — for 
that,  or  because.  The  Vulgate  renders  it,  in  quo,  in 
whom ;  from  which  some  have  thought  the  Apostle 
meant  to  assert,  that  it  is  in  Adam,  that  all  men  have 
sinned,  so  that  his  transgression  becomes  theirs  by  im- 
putation. But  1  see  nothing  in  the  passage,  or  in  the 
nature  of  the  subject,  which  can  justify  such  an  inter- 
pretation. 

On  this  particular  point,  our  opinions  have  been  of- 
ten misrepresented.  We  are  said  to  hold,  that  God 
dooms  a  whole  race  of  innocent  creatures  to  destruction,  or 
considers  them  all  as  deserving  destruction,Jbr  the  sin  of  one 
man.  Now  when  I  examine  the  respectable  writings  of 
the  earlier  Calvinists  generally,  on  the  subject  of  origi- 
nal sin,  I  find  nothing  which  resembles  such  a  statement 
as  this.  It  is  true,  exceptionable  language  has  in  some 
instances  been  used,  and  opinions,  which  I  should  think 
erroneous,  have  sometimes  been  entertained  on  this  sub- 
ject. But  the  Orthodox  in  New  England,  at  the  pres- 
ent day,  are  not  chargeable  with  the  same  fault.  The 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity,  in  any  sense, 
which  those  words  naturally  and   properly  convey,  is  a 


45 

doctrine  which  we  do  not  believe.  It'  any  shall  say,  as 
Stapfer  does,  who  refers  to  Vitringa  and  other  reformed 
divines,  as  agreeing  with  him, — that  "  for  God  to  give 
Adam  a  posterity  like  himself,  and  to  impute  his  sin  to 
them,  is  one  and  the  same  thing  ;"  I  should  not  object 
to  such  an  imputation.  For  I  see  not  how  any  man,  who 
has  a  serious  regard  to  scripture,  or  to  fact,  or  considers 
what  are  the  laws  of  our  nature,  can  hesitate  to  admit, 
that  God  has  given  Adam  a  posterity  like  himself. 

But  the  word  imputation  has,  in  my  view,  been  im- 
properly used  in  relation  to  this  subject,  and  has  occa- 
sioned unnecessary  perplexity.  In  scripture,  the  word, 
impute,  signifies  uniformly,  if  I  mistake  not,  charging  or 
reckoning  to  a  man  that  which  is  his  own  attribute  or 
act.  Every  attempt,  which  has  been  made,  to  prove 
that  God  ever  imputes  to  man  any  sinful  disposition  or 
act,  which  is  not  strictly  his  own,  has,  in  my  judgment, 
failed  of  success.  And  as  it  is  one  object  of  these  Let- 
ters, to  make  you  acquainted  with  the  real  opinions  of 
the  Orthodox  in  New  England  ;  I  would  here  say,  with 
the  utmost  frankness,  that  we  are  not  perfectly  satisfied 
with  the  language  used  on  this  subject,  in  the  Assem- 
bly's Catechism.  Though  we  hold  that  Catechism,  tak- 
en as  a  whole,  in  the  highest  estimation  ;  we  could  not, 
with  a  good  conscience,  subscribe  to  every  expression  it 
contains  in  relation  to  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  Hence 
it  is  common  for  us,  when  we  declare  our  assent  to  the 
Catechism,  to  do  it  with  an  express  or  implied  restric- 
tion. We  receive  the  Catechism  generally,  as  containing 
a  summary  of  the  principles  of  Christianity.  But  that 
the  sinfulness  of  our  natural,  fallen  state  consists,  in  any 
measure,  "  in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,"  is  what  we 
cannot  admit,  without  more  convincing  evidence.  But 
we  think  we  have  the  best  reason  for   believing  that,  in 


46 

respect  of  character,  there  is  a  connexion  between  Adam 
and  the  whole  human  race.  Nor  do  we,  as  the  Author 
of  this  Sermon  seems  to  think,  rest  this  opinion  on  "  a 
few  slight  hints  about  the  fall  of  our  first  parents,"  but 
upon  the  plain,  and  reiterated  declaration  of  the  Apostle 
Paul,  Rom.  v.  Notwithstanding  all  the  difficulty  with 
which  this  passage  is  attended,  one  point  is  plain.  The 
writer  makes  it  known,  in  different  forms  of  expression, 
and  with  the  greatest  perspicuity,  that  a  connexion  re- 
ally exists  between  the  father  of  the  human  race,  and 
all  his  children.  Unless  Adam's  transgression  had,  in 
the  plan  of  the  divine  administration,  such  a  relation  to 
his  posterity,  that  in  consequence  of  it,  they  were  con- 
stituted sinners,  and  subjected  to  death  and  all  other 
sufferings,  as  penal  evils  ;  the  Apostle  reasons  inconclu- 
sively, and  entirely  misses  the  end  he  aims  at,  in  his  com- 
parison of  Adam  and  Christ.  Nothing  can  be  more  ob- 
vious, according  to  the  common  rules  of  interpretation, 
than  that  he  meant  to  assert  this  connexion ;  so  that,  if 
no  such  connexion  exists,  he  had  the  misfortune  to  pub- 
lish a  mistake. 

Though  it  would  not  be  consistent  with  the  plan  of 
these  Letters  to  collect  the  various  passages  of  the 
New  Testament,  which  prove  what  man's  native  charac- 
ter is;  I  cannot  willingly  leave  the  subject  without  ad- 
verting again  to  the  manner,  in  which  the  Apostle  Paul 
was  accustomed  to  treat  it.  From  a  great  multitude  of 
pertinent  texts,  I  take  one.  Eph.  ii.  3.  "  Among  whom 
also  we  all  had  our  conversation,  &c.  and  were  by  nature 
children  of  wrath,  even  as  others."  He  says  this  of  believ- 
ing Jews,  as  is  evident  from  the  beginning  and  the  close 
of  the  verse,  in  connexion  with  the  context.  To  be  chil- 
dren of  wrath,  according  to  Schleusner,  Rosenmuller, 
Koppe,  and  others,  is  to  be  worthy  of  punishment,  poenis 


47 

divinis  digni.  To  be  children  of  wrath,  QvGei,  by  nature, 
is  to  be  born  so,  or  to  be  so  in  consequence  of  our  birth, 
or  in  consequence  of  our  natural  dispositiou.  "  Ob  natura- 
lem  nostram  indolem."  See  Schleusner's  Lex.  on  this  text. 
Compare  Gal.  ii.  15,  "  We  who  are  Jews  by  nature"  i.  e. 
born  Jews,  or  Jews  by  birth.  Schleusner  says  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  whole  scope  of  the  discourse,Ep.ii.  fyvoig,  nature, 
signifies  the  state  of  those  who  had  not  been  instructed  and 
reformed  by  the  christian  religion.  True.  But  why  was 
that  state  called  fyvOLg,  nature  ? — a  word  which  points  us 
to  our  origin,  nativity,  birth. — We  shall  see  the  reason 
of  this,  if  we  compare  this  text  with  the  passage,  quoted 
above,  from  John  iii.  "  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh,  is 
flesh  ;"  a  declaration  fairly  capable  of  no  meaning  but 
this,  that  man  possesses  by  his  natural  birth  a  depraved 
disposition,  corrupt  desires,  as  the  word  flesh  signifies  in 
the  text  now  under  consideration,  Eph.  ii.  3,  and  in  every 
other  place,  where  it  relates  to  the  moral  character  or 
conduct  of  men.  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh,  or 
that  which  man  has  by  nature,  is  such  a  temper  or 
character,  that  according  to  the  Apostle,  he  is  a  child  of 
wrath  ; — such,  according  to  the  representation  of  Christ, 
that  he  must  be  the  subject  of  a  new  birth  by  the  spirit, 
or  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God. — This  must  be 
the  meaning  of  these  two  passages  taken  together,  un- 
less we  are  driven  by  our  dislike  of  the  doctrine  con- 
tained in  them,  to  violate  the  plainest  rules  of  interpre- 
tation. If  similar  phraseology  should  be  found  on  any 
other  subject ;  if,  for  example,  it  should  be  said,  that 
which  is  born  of  human  parents  is  human,  or  that  which 
is  born  of  man  is  frail  and  liable  to  decay, — and  that  eve- 
ry man  is  by  nature  the  subject  of  various  appetites  and 
passions  ;  who  would  not  understand  these  phrases,  as 
denoting  what  man  is,  or  what  he   has,  bit  his  birth,  oi 


48 

what  is  inbred,  or  native  ?  Or  if  language  should  be  us- 
ed by  an  inspired  writer  expressing  in  the  same  way, 
that  which  is  opposite  to  what  we  understand  by  this 
text ;  that  is,  if  it  should  be  said,  that  the  children  of  men 
are  by  nature  pure, — or  that  what  is  born  of  human  par- 
ents is  virtuous  and  holy;  would  not  our  opposers  think 
such  a  passage  a  proof  sufficiently  clear,  of  the  native  pu- 
rity, the  original,  inbred  virtue  of  man%  And  would  they 
not  be  greatly  "  amazed  "  at  the  attempt  of  any  man  to 
put  a  different  sense  upon  it  ? 

That  the  human  species  is  universally,  while  unre- 
newed, in  a  state  of  entire  moral  corruption,  is  implied 
in  the  invariable  practice  of  the  Apostles,  wherever 
they  went,  to  call  upon  men,  according  to  their  divine 
commission,—"  upon  all  men  every  where  to  repents  The 
duty,  and  necessity  of  repentance,  which  denotes  a  radical 
moral  change,  was  inculcated  on  all,  to  whom  the  Gos- 
pel was  proclaimed.  If,  in  any  part  of  the  world,  an 
Apostle  found  human  beings,  he  instantly  took  it  for 
granted,  that  they  were  children  of  disobedience,  and 
children  of  wrath,  and  treated  them  accordingly, — just 
as  he  took  it  for  granted  that  they  were  mortal. — All 
the  provisions  of  the  Gospel  are  adapted  to  those,  who 
are  polluted  and  guilty.  If  any  can  be  found,  whether  old 
or  young,  who  are  not  the  subjects  of  moral  depravity 
and  ruin,  they  are  evidently  excluded  from  any  concern 
with  those  provisions. — When  we  pursue  the  history  of 
the  christian  religion  through  the  days  of  the  Apostles, 
we  find  wherever  it  produced  its  genuine  effects,  it  pro- 
duced repentance  and  fruits  meet  for  repentance  ; — it  form- 
ed men,  whoever  they  were,  to  a  new  character  ;  so 
that  it  became  universally  true,  that  if  any  man  was  a 
Christian,  he  was  a  new  creature,  or  in  the  language  of 
of  Christ,  was  born  again.     We  find  no  instance  of  the 


49 

contrary.  The  character,  which  St.  Paul  gives  of  the 
followers  of  Christ,  implies  that  they  had,  without  excep- 
tion, been  renewed.  He  often  turns  their  thoughts  to 
their  former  state  of  degradation  and  ruin.  He  paints 
that  state  in  the  strongest  colors.  He  illustrates  it  by 
the  most  striking  metaphors.  He  reminds  believers, 
that  before  their  regeneration,  they  were  servants  of  sin, 
dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,  enemies  to  God,  impure, 
earthly.  He  speaks  of  this  moral  corruption,  not  as  a 
fact,  which  was  local,  or  of  limited  extent,  but  univer- 
sal. And  accordingly,  he  makes  it  a  part  of  the  general 
system  of  Christian  doctrine. 

There  is  a  difficulty,  I  well  know,  in  applying  the 
description,  given  by  the  Apostle,  of  the  character,  which 
the  first  converts  to  Christianity  originally  possessed, 
to  men  of  the  present  day,  whose  exterior  character 
has  been  formed  under  the  influence  of  a  Christian  educa- 
tion. But  this  difficulty  disappears,  when  we  attend  to 
the  principle,  which  the  Apostle  recognises  in  his  rea- 
soning, Rom.  iii,  and  which  I  have  already  endeavored 
to  illustrate  ;  namely  ;  that,  whatever  difference  may 
exist,  as  to  outward  character,  all  men  have  the  same 
natural  disposition,  the  same  original  ingredients  of  moral 
character.  In  conformity  to  this  principle,  we  pass  by 
what  is  merely  regular  and  amiable  in  the  eye  of  the 
world ;  we  pass  by  all  the  diversities  of  exterior  charac- 
ter, and  look  to  the  grand  moral  affections  of  the  heart, 
in  which  all  are  alike.  Agreeably  to  this  view,  and 
agreeably  to  what  our  Savior  says  as  to  sin  in  the  heart, 
Matt.  v.  21,  22,  28,  it  would  appear  that,  although  men 
have  not  openly,  or  by  formal  acts,  made  themselves 
idolaters,  thieves,  adulterers,  and  murderers  ;  they  do, 
in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  possess  those  very  passions, 
or  desires,  which,  if  indulged  and  acted  out,  would  make 
them  so.     And  thus  we  shall  have,   the  happiness  o^ 


50 

agreeing  with  the  Author  of  the  sermon  now  before  us, 
who  in  another  ordination  sermon,  gives  the  following 
just  description  of  the  character  of  the  human  species. — 
"  To  whom  is  the  minister  of  the  gospel  sent  to  preach  ? 
To  men  of  upright  minds,  disposed  to  receive  and  obey 
the  truth,  which  guides  to  heaven?  Ah  no!  He  is  cal- 
led to  guide  a  wandering  flock ; — he  is  sent  to  a  world  of 
sinners,  in  whose  hearts  lurk  idolatry,  sensuality,  pride, 
and  every  corruption"* 

Men,  who  assert  the  native  purity  of  human  beings, 
insist  much  upon  the  harmlessness  and  tender  sensibilities 
of  little  children,  before  they  are  corrupted  by  example, 
and  also  upon  the  existence  of  what  are  called  the  natu- 
ral affections  in  mankind  generally.  But  how  can  those 
things,  which  man  possesses  in  common  with  irrational 
animals,  or  those,  which  necessarily  appertain  to  his  pres- 
ent mode  of  existence,  and  which  remain  the  same, 
whatever  character  he  sustains,  be  considered  as  evi- 
dence of  the  purity  of  his  moral  nature  ? 

The  attempt,  often  made,  to  account  for  the  univer- 
sal prevalence  of  sin,  by  the  influence  of  example,  with- 
out supposing  any  native  bias  to  evil,  cannot  afford  satis- 
faction. For  we  are  still  pressed  with  the  difficulty  of 
accounting  for  it,  that  children,  whose  nature  is  untaint- 
ed with  moral  evil,  should  be  disposed  to  imitate  bad 
examples,  rather  than  good  ones, — to  neglect  their  duty, 
rather  than  perform  it ;  and  that  all  discreet  parents  and 
instructers,  who  have  any  familiar  acquaintance  with  the 
youthful  mind,  should  be  led  to  frame  their  whole  sys- 
tem of  instruction  and  discipline,  upon  the  principle,  that 
children  are  prone  to  evil,  inclined  to  go  astray.  Any 
plan  of  education,  whether  domestic  or  public,  which 
should  overlook  this  principle,  and  involve  the  oppo- 
site one  of  man's  native  purity,  would  be  regarded  by 
*  Serm.  at  the  Ordination  of  the  Rev.  J.  Codman. 


51 

all  men  of  sober  experience  and  sober  judgment,  as  ro- 
mantic and  dangerous. 

But  I  must  bring  my  remarks  on  this  subject  to  a 
close.     My  object  was  to  show  that  we  receive  the  doc- 
trine of  man's  native  corruption  upon  its  own  proper  ev- 
idence, as  we  receive  any  other  truth ;  and  that  it  is  to- 
tally unphilosophical  and  unscriptural,  to  suffer  this  evi- 
dence to  be  obscured  or  perplexed  by  the  inquiry,  how 
the  doctrine  can   be    reconciled  with  the  moral   perfec- 
tion of  God.     Both  the  moral   perfection  of  God,  and 
the  doctrine  of  human  depravity,   rest   upon   evidence, 
which  is,  in  our  view,  perfectly  conclusive.     We  believe 
them  both,  and   believe  them  entirely  consistent  with 
each  other.     Indeed,  we  see   no  peculiar  difficulty  at- 
tending their  consistency.     If  any  one  asserts,  that  our 
doctrine  of  man's  depravity  and  the  moral  perfection  of 
God  are  inconsistent  with  each  other ;  it  will  behoove 
him  to  show,  in  what  respects,  and  for  what  reasons, 
they  are  inconsistent.     He  ought  to  show  too,  how  it  is 
any  more  inconsistent  with  the  goodness  of  God,  for  men 
to  be  corrupt  in  the  earliest  period  of  their  existence,  than 
in  any  subsequent  period ;   or  for  all  men  to  be  corrupt, 
than  for  any  part  of  them  ;    or  for  men  to  be  corrupt 
in  a  higher  degree,  than  in  a  lower  degree.     If,  from  a 
consideration  of  the  divine  goodness,  or  for  other  reasons, 
any  should  persist  in  denying  the  doctrine  of  man's  wo- 
tive  depravity  ;  they   will  easily  see   what  a  task  they 
take  upon  themselves.     They  must  first  make  it  appear, 
by  a  thorough  investigation,  conducted  in  conformity  to 
just  and  allowed  principles,  that   none   of  the   texts  of 
Scripture,  which  I  have  cited,  and  no  others  of  a  similar 
character,  contain  the  doctrine.     In  addition  to  this,  thev 
must    satisfactorily  account   for  all   the  corruption  and 
wickedness,  which  man  has  exhibited,  from  ch'Mhood  to 


52 


old  age,  in  all  nations  and  circumstances,  and  in  opposi- 
tion to  all  the  means  which  have  been  used  to  restrain 
him,  without  admitting  that  his  nature  is  prone  to  evil ; — 
a  task,  I  should  think,  of  the  same  kind,  with  that  of  ac- 
counting for  all  the  phenomena  of  the  natural  world,  by 
which  the  Newtonian  philosophy  proves  the  law  of 
gravitation,  without  admitting  that  law. 


LETTER   VII. 

My  respected  friends, 

Unitarian  writers  generally,  as  well  as  the  Author  of 
the  Sermon  before  us,  have  appeared  to  think,  that  the 
commonly  received  doctrine  of  Election  is  totally  incom- 
patible with  the  goodness  of  God,  and  that  our  believ- 
ing that  doctrine  is  proof  sufficient,  that  we  do  not  be- 
lieve in  the  divine  goodness. 

To  this  subject,  though  not  a  very  popular  one,  I 
hope  you  will  attend  with  that  candor  and  unprejudic- 
ed judgment,  without  which,  as  you  must  have  often 
seen  in  others,  all  inquiry  after  the  truth  is  in  vain. 
Against  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  now 
to  be  considered,  there  are  strong  prepossessions.  And 
I  am  (ree  to  acknowledge,  that  Orthodox  writers  and 
preachers  of  high  repute,  but  deficient  in  judgment, 
have,  in  some  instances,  exhibited  the  doctrine  in  a 
manner,  which  has  given  too  much  occasion  for  these 
prepossessions  ; — and  too  much  occasion  for  this  Au- 
thor, and  many  others,  to  think  that  the  doctrine  is  in- 
consistent with  the  moral  perfection  of  God.  1  wish 
you,  therefore,  distinctly  to  understand,  that  it  is  not  the 
doctrine  of  Election,  as  stated  by  some  of  its  injudicious 


53 

advocates,  or  as  understood  by  its  opposers,  that  I  would 
now  defend. 

This  subject,  as  it  respects  a  principle  of  the  divine 
administration,  is  not  only  a  very  important  one,  but  one 
which  obviously  involves  questions  of  difficult  and  pro- 
found investigation.  It  respects  the  administration  of  a 
Being,  possessed  of  infinite  understanding,  and  infinite 
holiness, — a  Being,  to  whom  we  have  no  right  to  dic- 
tate, and  of  whom  we  have  no  cause  to  complain, — a 
Being,  before  whose  supreme  majesty,  we  are  nothing, 
and  less  than  nothing.  Though  I  have  a  heart  as  lofty, 
and  vain,  and  presumptuous  as  others  ;  yet  when  I  bring 
this  subject  before  me,  and  consider  that  I  have  under- 
taken to  inquire  respecting  the  administration  of  the 
eternal,  incomprehensible  God,  my  Sovereign,  and  my 
Judge, — I  stand  in  awe  ;  I  check  my  presumption ;  and 
resolve  to  hold  my  mind  in  a  humble,  docile  frame,  lest 
I  should  incur  that  appalling  rebuke  of  the  Apostle, — 
"  Who  art  thou,  O  man,  that  repliest  against  God  ?"  I 
bid  myself  remember,  that  neither  my  opinions,  nor 
those  of  any  mortal,  are  entitled  to  regard,  any  farther 
than  they  agree  with  the  truths  of  revelation,  and  that, 
whatever  my  opinions  or  wishes  may  be,  those  truths 
will  remain  the  same.  I  would  devoutly  cherish  the  im- 
pression that  no  opinions  can  be  right,  which  would  make 
any  part  of  Scripture  unwelcome  to  me  ;  and  that  the 
greatest  dislike  of  men,  which  may  be  incurred  by  de- 
fending the  doctrines  of  revelation,  is  not  worthy  to  be 
named,  in  comparison  with  the  frown  of  my  final  Judge, 
for  rejecting  those  doctrines. 

It  is  generally  acknowledged  by  Christians,  that  no 
opinion  or  reasoning  respecting  the  divine  character,  or 
administration,  can  be  relied  upon,  except  that  which 
rests  on  the  declarations  of  Scripture,     On  this  subject 


64 

especially,  not  the  least  respect  is  due  to  any  argument, 
however  plausible,  which,  on  careful  inquiry,  is  found 
contrary  to  what  God  has  taught  us  in  his  word,  or  to 
what  takes  place  in  his  providence.  The  object  of  our 
present  inquiry  is  then  very  simple.  If  it  were  put  to 
my  natural  reason  to  judge,  by  its  own  light,  respecting 
what  is  called  the  doctrine  of  Election ;  my  judgment 
might  agree  with  the  judgment  of  those,  who  reject  the 
doctrine.  If  the  question  were,  what  difficulties  attend 
the  doctrine  ;  I  might  perhaps  bring  forward  as  many 
as  others.  And  if  the  question  were,  whether  the  doc- 
trine, as  generally  represented  by  its  opposers,  and  even 
by  the  Author  of  this  Sermon,  is  according  to  the  word 
of  God ;  I  should  answer,  as  they  do,  in  the  negative. 
But  the  proper  question  is,  what  saith  the  Scripture1? 
What  does  God  teach  us,  as  to  the  manner  in  which  he 
designates  those,  who  are  to  be  heirs  of  salvation  ? 

I  shall  not  go  largely  into  a  consideration  of  the  evi- 
dence from  Scripture,  in  support  of  the  doctrine  now  un- 
der consideration  ;  but  shall  merely  proceed  far  enough 
to  show,  that  we  do  not  believe  the  doctrine  without 
evidence,  and  that  our  believing  it  is  not  a  proof  of  our 
denying  the  moral  perfection  of  God,  but  a  consequence 
of  our  reverence  for  his  word. 

Proof  of  the  doctrine  of  Election. 

I  find  that  Jesus  Christ  often  speaks  of  a  part  of  man- 
kind, as  being  given  him  of  the  Father.  This  he  does 
several  times  in  John  xvii.  As  an  example  of  the  whole, 
verse  2  may  be  taken.  "  As  thou  hast  given  him  pow- 
er over  all  flesh,  that  he  should  give  eternal  life  to  as 
many  as  thou  hast  given  him."  The  sense  is,  that  the 
Father  has  given  to  Christ  a  part  of  the  human  race,  and 
that  those,  who  have  thus  been  given  to  Christ,  are  the  per- 
sons who  shall  have  eternal  life.    As  to  the  meaning  of  the 


55 

passage,  the  only  question  that  deserves  a  moment's 
consideration,  is,  whether  it  relates  to  all  who  shall 
finally  be  saved,  or  merely  to  those  who  were  disciples 
of  Christ  at  that  time. — In  favor  of  the  larger  sense, 
there  are  several  arguments. 

1.  Christ  is  here  speaking  of  his  general  commission 
and  work,  as  a  Savior.  He  tells  us,  that  the  Father 
has  given  him  power  over  alljlesh,  without  the  least  in- 
timation of  any  limits.  And  for  what  purpose  was  he 
endued  with  this  extensive  power  ?  "  That  he  might 
give  eternal  life  to  as  many  as  the  Father  had  given  him." 
His  work,  as  a  Savior,  and  the  power  committed  to 
him  did  in  fact  extend,  not  merely  to  those  who  were 
then  his  disciples,  but  to  the  whole  number  of  the  re- 
deemed. But  why  should  he  speak  of  his  poiver  in  this 
extensive  sense,  if  he  meant  that  the  end  to  be  accom- 
plished by  it  should  be  understood  in  so  limited  a  sense  ? 
No  limits  are  suggested.  Why  then  should  we  not 
understand  the  phrase,  "  as  many  as  thou  hast  given 
him,"  to  denote  all,  to  whom  Christ  will  actually  give 
eternal  life  ? 

2.  The  context  shows,  that  Christ,  in  the  prayer 
here  recited,  had  his  eye  upon  all,  who  should  be  saved 
in  future  ages.  v.  20.  "  Neither  pray  I  for  these  alone, 
but  for  them  also,  who  shall  believe  on  me  through  their 
word."  There  can  be  no  reason  to  doubt,  that  he  had 
as  large  an  extent  of  views  in  the  second  verse,  as  in  the 
twentieth. 

3.  This  interpretation  receives  additional  confirma- 
tion from  a  similar  passage  in  John  vi.  37,  39.  "  All  that 
the  Father  giveth  me,  shall  come  to  me ;  and  him  that 
cometh  to  me,  I  will  in  no  wise  cast  out. — And  this  is 
the  Father's  will  who  sent  me,  that  of  all  which  he 
hath  given  me  1  should  lose  nothing,  but  should  raise  it 


56 

up  again  at  the  last  day."  Those  who  are  given  to 
Christ,  and  those  who  shall  come  to  Christ,  are  here 
identified.  Indeed,  the  passage  plainly  signifies,  that,  in 
every  case,  a  person's  being  given  to  Christ  secures  his 
coming  to  Christ ;  a  circumstance  which  fixes  one  point ; 
namely ;  that  those,  who  will  finally  be  saved,  are  giv- 
en to  Christ  before  they  come  to  him. — From  v.  39,  we 
have  additional  proof  that,  when  Christ  speaks  of  those, 
who  were  given  him  of  the  Father,  he  includes  the 
whole  number  that  shall  be  saved.  "  This  is  the  Fa- 
ther's will, — that  of  all  which  he  hath  given  me,  I  should 
lose  nothing,  but  should  raise  it  up  at  the  last  day." 
The  work  of  Christ,  as  a  Savior,  doubtless  extends 
alike  to  all,  who  shall  be  raised  to  eternal  life  at  the 
last  day.  But  this  work  of  his  is  here  represented  as 
relating  to  those,  whom  the  Father  had  given  him. 
From  the  whole  it  seems  evident,  that  when  Christ 
speaks  so  familiarly,  in  John  xvii,  of  those  who  were  giv- 
en him,  he  refers  to  all  who  shall  be  saved. 

But  even  on  supposition,  that  the  language  related 
to  those  only,  who  were  then  his  disciples  ;  the  argu- 
ment would  still  be  the  same,  because  the  principle 
would  be  the  same.  There  could  be  no  reason,  why 
the  Father  should  give  Christ  those,  who  were  sav- 
ed by  him  during  his  life,  and  not  those  who  should  be 
saved  afterwards ;  and  no  reason,  why  being  given  to 
Christ  should  stand  in  certain  connexion  with  salvation 
in  one  case,  and  not  in  the  other. 

If  we  should  examine  other  texts  of  similar  import, 
we  should  find  still  more  abundant  proof  of  what  is  so 
evident  from  the  two  passages  above  cited  ;  namely  ; 
that  the  Father  has  given  a  portion  of  mankind  to  Christ, 
in  a  peculiar  sense,  and  in  distinction  from  others,  and  that 
Christ  will  actually  bestow  eternal  life  on  all  who  have  been 
thus  given  him.     I  see  not  how  any  man  can  give  a  dif- 


57 

i'erent  sense  to  the  texts  alluded  to,  without  being  con* 
scious  that  he  is  drivren  to  it,  by  his  prepossession  against 
this  doctrine. 

Pursuing  the  single  inquiry,  what  the  scriptures  teach, 
we  find  several  passages,  which  speak,  with  a  re- 
markable emphasis,  of  a  purpose  and  choice  of  God  re- 
specting those,  who  will  be  saved.  My  limits  will  allow 
me  to  consider  only  two. 

The  apostle  says  to  the  Ephesians,  ch.  i.  3 — 11, 
"  Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  who  hath  blessed  us  with  all  spiritual  blessings 
in  heavenly  things  in  Christ ;  according  as  he  hath  chosen 
us  in  him  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  that  ive  should 
be  holy,  &fc.  ;  having  predestinated  us  unto  the  adoption  of 
children  by  Jesus  Christ  to  himself  according  to  the  good 
pleasure  of  his  will,  to  the  praise  of  the  glory  of  his  grace, 
— in  whom  also  we  have  obtained  an  inheritance,  being 
predestinated  according  to  the  purpose  of  him,  who  worketh 
all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  wilV  Here  we  are 
taught,  that  God  has  a  purpose,  choice,  will,  and  good 
pleasure,  respecting  those  who  are  saved.  It  is  such  a 
purpose,  that  when  men  are  saved,  they  are  saved  ac- 
cording to  it.  It  is  a  purpose  or  choice,  which  was  in  the 
mind  of  God,  before  they  were  saved,  and  before  they  ex- 
isted. They  were  "  chosen  in  Christ  before  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world."  And  it  is  a  purpose,  which  does  not 
rest  upon  any  personal  merit  in  those,  who  are  its  ob- 
jects. The  purpose  or  choice  is  here  repeatedly  repre- 
sented as  a  matter  of  grace,  as  according  to  the  riches  of 
grace; — exactly  in  agreement  with  other  passages,  which 
exclude  all  works  of  righteousness  from  having  any  concern 
in  this  subject. 

The  other  passage  I  shall  particularly  notice,  is 
Rom.  ix,  1 1 — 24.      In  verses  1 1, 12.  13.  it  is  said  :  «  For 

P, 


58 

the  children,"  that  is,  Jacob  and  Esau,  "  being  not  yet 
born,  neither  having  done  any  good  or  evil,  that  the  pur- 
pose of  God  according  to  election  might  stand,  not  of 
works,  but  of  him  that  calleth,  it  was  said  unto  her,  the 
elder  shall  serve  the  younger.  As  it  is  written,  Jacob 
have  I  loved,  but  Esau  have  I  hated."  It  is  beyond  all 
doubt  in  my  mind,  that  this  interesting  passage  was 
meant  to  be  understood  in  a  national  sense  ;  that  is,  that 
they  respected  Jacob  and  Esau,  not  personally,  but  as 
the  heads  of  two  tribes  or  nations ;  or,  in  other  words, 
that  they  respected  those  two  nations.  It  is  apparent 
too,  that  what  is  quoted  from  Moses,  v.  15  ;  "I  will 
have  mercy  on  whom  I  will  have  mercy,  and  I  will  have 
compassion  on  whom  I  will  have  compassion,"  was  said 
originally  respecting  a  part  of  the  Israelitish  nation  in 
the  wilderness.  But  it  is  equally  clear,  that  the  apos- 
tle makes  use  of  the  divine  conduct  respecting  the  pos- 
terity of  Jacob  and  Esau,  mentioned  in  v.  11,  12,  13,  and 
the  declaration  of  God,  quoted  in  v.  15,  as  illustrative  of 
a  general  principle  in  the  divine  administration.  This 
principle  is  brought  into  view,  v.  16,  as  an  inference  from 
what  preceded.  "  So  then  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth, 
nor  of  him  that  runneth,  but  of  God  that  showeth 
mercy."  It  is  deduced,  as  a  general  principle,  from 
what  God  said  respecting  the  offending  Israelites  in  a 
particular  case.  This  mode  of  reasoning  is  repeated 
immediately  after.  First,  a  passage  is  quoted  from  the 
Old  Testament ;  v.  17  ;  "  For  the  scripture  saith  unto 
Pharaoh,  even  for  this  same  cause  have  I  raised  thee  up, 
that  I  might  show  my  power  in  thee,  and  that  my  name 
might  be  declared  throughout  all  the  earth."  From 
this  declaration  of  God  respecting  a  single  individual, 
a  general  conclusion  is  drawn,  v.  18.  "  Therefore  hath 
he  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have   mercy?  and  whom  he 


59 

will  he  hardeneth."  This  is  laid  down  by  the  apostle, 
as  a  general  principle  of  the  divine  administration.  And 
it  is  this  general  principle,  that  is  asserted  in  the  ortho- 
dox doctrine  of  Election,  or  sovereign  grace. 

Now  take  a  brief  view  of  this  remarkable  passage. 
What  is  it  that  the  apostle  takes  so  much  pains  to  es- 
tablish ?  Evidently  this,  that  God  makes  distinctions 
among  men,  or  bestows  peculiar  favors  on  some,  and  not 
on  others,  pro  libitu,  pro  arbitrio,  according  to  his  own 
will,  or  pleasure*  How  does  he  prove  this ?  From 
particular  instances  of  the  divine  conduct,  as  made  known 
by  the  Scriptures.  It  is  for  this  purpose  he  quotes  what 
God  said  respecting  his  treatment  of  Jacob  and  Esau, 
and  of  Pharaoh.  Taken  in  any  other  view,  the  quota- 
tions have  no  relation  to  the  subject,  and  the  reasoning 
of  the  apostle  from  them  is  nugatory. 

But  how  can  the  apostle  infer  a  general  truth 
from  particular  facts  ?  How  can  he  infer  what 
the  divine  purpose  and  conduct  will  generally  be,  re- 
specting the  higher  distinctions  to  be  made  among  men 
in  the  concerns  of  religion,  from  what  they  were  towards 
a  few  individuals  in  regard  to  other  distinctions? — Plain- 
ly, because,  as  he  evidently  understands  it,  the  same 
principle  is  involved  in  both.  The  truth  asserted  in  v. 
16,  is  gen  eral.  "It  is  not  of  him  that  Avilleth,  nor  of 
him  that  runneth,  but  of  God  that  showeth  mercy." 
The  sense  is,  that,  in  relation  to  the  subject  under  con- 
sideration, "nothing  is  effected  by  the  efforts  of  man,  but 
that  every  thing  depends  on  the  mercy  of  God.f  This 
general  truth  is  inferred  from  what  God  said  respecting 
his  conduct  in  a  particular   case,  because    that  case   im- 

*  See  Schleusner,  Roseiamuller,  and  other  Commentators,  on  the 
place. 

t  Roscnmuller. 


60 

plied  the  same  principle.  What  objection  can  lie  against 
this  argument  ?  If  God  proceeded  in  the  manner  de- 
scribed, in  his  treatment  of  two  nations,  that  is,  made  a 
distinction  between  them  by  his  own  sovereign  purpose 
and  act ;  he  may  surely  proceed  in  the  same  manner 
towards  individuals.  And  if  he  has  actually  proceeded 
in  this  manner  and  on  this  principle,  in  his  treatment  of 
particular  individuals  ;  why  may  he  not  proceed  in  the 
same  manner  in  his  treatment  of  others  generally?  That 
the  Apostle  reasons  thus,  is  undeniable. 

It  may  be  made  still  more  certain,  that  we  under- 
stand this  passage  correctly,  by  looking  at  the  objection, 
which  the  Apostle  supposed  would  be  made.  "  Thou 
wilt  say  then  unto  me,  why  doth  he  yet  find  fault  ?  for 
who  hath  resisted  his  will  ?"  v.  19.  The  nature  of  the 
objection,  proves,  that  it  related  to  that  very  doctrine  of 
God's  sovereign  purpose  and  agency,  which  makes  a 
a  part  of  our  faith.  It  is  the  very  objection,  which  is 
still  made  against  that  doctrine.  The  nature  of  the  ob- 
jection shows  the  nature  of  the  doctrine,  against  which 
it  was  urged.  And  the  nature  of  the  answer,  v.  20 — 24, 
shows,  still  more  plainly,  what  was  the  nature  of  the  ob- 
jection, and  the  nature  of  the  doctrine  objected  to.  It  is  ex- 
actly the  answTer,  which  it  is  suitable  to  give  to  one,  who 
urges  just  such  an  objection  as  this,  against  the  Orthodox 
doctrine  of  God's  sovereign  purpose  and  agency.  Such  a 
striking  correspondence  would,  in  any  other  case,  and 
must  in  this,  be  considered,  as  affording  very  satisfactory 
evidence  of  the  scope  and  meaning  of  the  discourse. 

There  is  one  more  important  inquiry  respecting  this 
passage  ;  and  that  is,  whether  that  general  principle   of 
the  divine  administration,  which  the  Apostle  establishes, 
relates  to  the  eternal  interests  of  men,  or  to  something 
of  less  moment.     Now  I  think  nothing  can  be  plainer, 


61 

than  the  correctness  of  the  common  construction  of  the 
passage,  viz.  ;  that  it  relates  to  the  difference  which  ex- 
ists among  men  with  regard  to  their  spiritual  and  eter- 
nal state.     This  appears  from  the  commencement  of  this 
particular  part  of  the  discourse,  v.  6,  7,  8,  in  which  the 
Apostle  brings  into  view  the  essential  difference  between 
real  Israelites,  and  those  who  are  of  Israel,  that  is,descend- 
ed  from  him  ; — between  the  children  of  the  flesh,  and 
the  children  of  God.  The  Apostle  labors  throughout  the 
discourse,  to  illustrate  the  manner,  in  which  this  differ- 
ence is  made,  drawing  his   illustrations,  as  was  natural, 
when  reasoning  with  Jews,  from  the  Jewish  Scriptures. 
That  he  refers  to  the  difference  which  is  made  among 
men  in  relation  to  their  religious  character  and  salvation, 
is  evident  also  from  v.  22,23  &c,  where, in  pursuance  of  the 
selfsame  subject,  which  was  treated  v.  6 — 18,  he  speaks 
of  the  vessels  of  mercy,  prepared  for  glory,  in  contra- 
distinction to  the  vessels  of  wrath ;  of  those  who  were  call- 
ed, both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  of  God's  people,  &c. 

If  still  further  confirmation  of  the  correctness  of  the 
reasoning  above  exhibited  were  necessary,  J  could,  as  I 
think,  make  it  appear,  that  the  doctrine  of  God's  sove- 
reign Election  is  the  only  doctrine,  which  accounts  satis- 
factorily for  the  actual  difference,  which  exists  between 
true  believers,  and  the  rest  of  the  world. 

But  if,  after  all,  any  should  be  disposed  to  urge  the 
common  objections  against  this  doctrine,  that  it  makes 
God  unrighteous,  and  that,  if  it  is  true,  we  cannot  be 
blamed  for  our  sins  ;  I  would,  for  the  present,  refer  them 
to  this  chapter,  to  learn  how  the  Apostle  Paul  would 
answer  their  objections. 

The  doctrine,  we  are  now  considering,  is  in  my  ap- 
prehension, clearly  implied  in  the  general  doctrine  of 
the  divine  purpose.   That  God  has  a.  wise  and  holy  plnn, 


62 

and  that  all  events  take  place  in  conformity  to  it,  is  not 
only  taught,  expressly  and  abundantly,  in  the  Scriptures, 
but  results  from  the  absolute  perfection  of  God,  and  from 
the  necessary  dependence  of  all  created  things  on  him, 
as  clearly,  as  any  mathematical  truth  results  from  its 
premises.  But  if  God  has  a  general  plan  or  design  re- 
specting the  events  which  take  place,  he  must  surely 
have  one  respecting  so  important  an  event,  as  the  sal- 
vation of  his  people. 

But  I  can  proceed  no  further  with  the  proof.  This 
subject  has  been  argued  by  the  ablest  writers,  that  have 
appeared  since  the  christian  era.  The  controversy  has 
been  wrought  up  to  such  a  degree  of  warmth,  and  the 
doctrine  is  associated  in  the  minds  of  not  a  few,  with  so 
many  strange  and  absurd  notions,  that  it  has  become  a 
matter  of  difficulty  and  hazard  for  a  man  to  offer  any 
proof  in  its  favor,  or  even  to  profess  that  he  believes  it. 
Indeed,  a  man  in  some  instances,  can  hardly  find  himself 
at  liberty  simply  to  repeat  the  texts  of  Scripture,  which 
support  the  doctrine,  without  being  attacked  with  a  score 
of  common  place  reflections,  intended  to  put  down  the 
doctrine  at  once,  without  discussion.  I  trust  my  readers 
will  be  sensible,  that  the  state  of  mind,  which  is  exhibit- 
ed in  such  cases,  is  altogether  at  variance  with  Chris- 
tian candor,  and  in  a  high  degree  unpropitious  to  the 
cause  of  truth. 


LETTER  VIII. 

My  respected  friends, 

Though  I  have  detained  you  longer  than  I  intended; 
on  the  doctrine  of  Election ;  I  must  beg  your  indulgence, 
while  I  express  my  thoughts  without  reserve,  on  various 
incorrect  views  and  representations  of  the  doctrine,  and 
on  some  of  the  difficulties  attending  it. 

Orthodox  writers  have  not  unfrequently  made  use 
of  expressions  which,  at  first  view,  may  seem  to  furnish 
occasion  for  some  of  the  heavy  charges,  brought  against 
us  by  our  opposers.  But  let  it  be  remembered,  that,  for 
the  rash,  unqualified  expressions  of  men,  who  have  be- 
come hot  and  violent  by  controversy,  we  are  not  to  be  held 
responsible.  We  here  enter  our  solemn  protest  against 
the  language  which  has  sometimes  been  employed,  and 
the  conceptions  which  have  sometimes  been  entertained 
on  this  subject,  or  rather,  perhaps,  against  the  appen- 
dages which  have  been  attached  to  it,  by  men,  who 
have  been  denominated  Calvinists.  Though  we  em- 
brace the  doctrine,  as  one  which  is  taught  in  Scripture, 
and  which  corresponds  with  enlightened  reason  and 
Christian  piety  ;  we  do  not  embrace  it  in  the  form,  and 
with  the  appendages,  to  which  I  allude. — But  my  pre- 
sent concern  is  chiefly  with  the  representations  of  our 
opposers* 

First.  It  is  often  represented,  that  we  believe  in 
an  arbitrary,  unconditional,  absolute  decree  of  election. 
These  words  are  used  abundantly  by  opposers  of  the 
doctrine,  and  are  made  the  means  of  exciting  many  pre- 
judices against  it.  This  representation  of  the  doctrine 
mn^t  receive  particular  attention. 


64 

The  word  arbitrary  has  acquired  a  bad  sense  ;  and 
is  now  understood  to  express  the  character  of  a  master 
or  ruler,  who  is  tyrannical,  or  oppressive  ;  who  acts  with- 
out regard   to  reason  or  justice,  and  is  governed  by  his 
own  capricious  will.     God's  purpose  respecting  the  sal- 
vation of  men  is,  in  our  view,  at  the  greatest  distance 
from  any  thing  like  this.     We  consider  the  purpose  of 
God  to   be  altogether  as  just  and  reasonable,  as  his  ad- 
ministration.    If,  in  the  actual  salvation  of  the  penitent 
and  holy,  God  is  wise  and  good ;  he  is  equally  wise  and 
good,  in  his  purpose  to  save  them, — his  conduct  being  an 
exact   accomplishment   of  his   purpose.     No   objection, 
therefore,   can  lie  against  the   previous  purpose   of  his 
will,  which  does  not  lie  equally  against  the  acts  of  his 
government.     The  inquiry,  then,  respects  a  matter  of 
fact.     Does  God  act  wisely  and  benevolently  in  saving 
sinners  ?  Or  does  he   act  from  a  capricious,  tyrannical 
will  ?     If  the  actions  of  his  government  are  capricious 
and  tyrannical,  so  is  his  purpose.     If  his  actions  are  wise 
and  good,  his  purpose  is  so  likewise.     Now  although, in 
various  respects,  God's  proceedings  in  saving  sinners  are 
inscrutable  to  us,  and  we  are  unable  to  see  by  what  rea- 
sons he  is  influenced ;  we  believe  he  has  reasons,  which  are 
perfectly  satisfactory  to  himself,  and  which,  were   they 
made  known,  would  be  satisfactory  to  us.     It  is  utterly 
impossible,  that  a  Being  of  infinite  perfection  should  act 
under  the    influence    of  a  capricious   or    despotic  will. 
Though  his  administration  may  often  be  contrary  to  our 
judgment  and  our  expectations  ;    w7e  confide  implicitly  in 
his  wisdom  and  goodness.     Nothing  can  be  more  suita- 
ble   for  us,  than  such    confidence    in    our  all    perfect 
Creator. 

I  say  then,  we  do  not  hold  the  doctrine  of  Election 
in  any  such  sense,  as  implies,  that  the  purpose  of  God  i« 


65 

despotic  or  capricious.  It  is  indeed  often  represented  in 
Scripture  to  be  the  purpose  of  his  will,  and  to  be  accord- 
ing to  his  good  pleasure.  But  what  can  be  more  wise 
and  reasonable,  than  the  will  or  good  pleasure  of  God? 
When  the  inspired  writers  declare  the  purpose  of  God 
to  be  according  to  his  own  will,  they  do,  it  is  granted, 
signify  to  us,  that  it  varies  from  the  will  of  man  ;  but 
they  do  this,  to  show  its  superior  wisdom  and  goodness. 
If  it  were  according  to  the  will  of  man,  it  would  be 
marked  only  with  human  wisdom.  But  as  it  is  accord- 
ing to  the  will  of  God,  it  is  marked  with  divine  wisdom. 
We  inquire  next,  whether  the  purpose  of  God  re- 
specting the  salvation  of  men  is  unconditional  and  abso- 
lute. I  know  that,  in  consequence  of  particular  errors 
which  have  prevailed,  it  has  been  so  represented  by 
many  of  its  advocates.  But  the  language  is  certainly  li- 
able to  be  misunderstood,  and  ought  not  to  be  used  with- 
out special  care.  Why  should  we  employ  words,  which 
will  not  convey,  truly  and  exactly,  to  the  minds  of  oth- 
ers, the  views  which  we  ourselves  entertain  ?  Here,  as 
before,  I  look  at  the  divine  conduct  in  saving  sinners, 
considering  that,  as  exactly  corresponding  with  the  pre- 
vious divine  purpose.  And  my  inquiry  is, — does  God 
actually  save  sinners  unconditionally  ?  The  first  answer 
I  give  to  this  is,  that  God  would  never  have  saved  them, 
had  not  Christ  interposed,  and  made  an  atonement. 
This,  then,  is  a  condition  of  human  salvation  ;  it  is  the 
grand  event,  on  account  of  which  God  forgives.  But  I 
inquire  farther;  does  God  actually  save  sinners,  that  is, 
forgive  them,  and  receive  them  into  his  kingdom,  with- 
out any  condition  on  their  part?  The  Bible  furnishes 
the  answer.  "  Repent  and  be  converted,  that  your  sins 
may  be  blotted  out."  He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved.'" 
This  is  the  uniform  representation  of  the  Bible.  The 
9 


(56 

condition  of  eternal  life  to  be  performed  by  men,  is  repent- 
ance,  faith,  obedience.     They   can  no  more   be  saved 
without  these,  than  without  the  death  of  Christ.  These 
conditions,  it  is  true,  are  of  a  different  nature  from  the 
atonement;    but  they  are  equally  necessary.     From  this 
view  of  the  subject,  I  come  to  a  satisfactory  conclusion. 
If  God  does  not  actually  save  sinners  without  conditions; 
he  did  not  purpose  to  save  them  without  conditions, — his 
purpose  and  conduct  always  agreeing  exactly  with  each 
other.   In  his  eternal  purpose,  he  regarded  the  same  condi- 
tions, and  regarded  them  in  the  same  manner,  as  he  does 
now,  when  he  saves.  Clearly,  then,  the  purpose  of  God  to 
save  men  cannot,  in  this  respect,  be  considered  as  uncon- 
ditional.    And  as  the  word  is  apt  to  be  understood  as 
excluding  all  regard  to  these  conditions,  and  being  so  un- 
derstood, involves  a  palpable  and  dangerous  error ;  the 
use  of  it  ought,  I  think,  to  be  avoided  ;  except  when  the 
particular   error  to  be  confuted,  or  some  other  circum- 
stances, will  show  plainly,  that  it  is  used  in  a  sense  agree- 
able to  the  truth. 

But  the  principal  object  of  Orthodox  writers  in  using 
the  word  unconditional  in  this  case,  has  been  the  denial 
of  a  particular  error.  Some  men  have  asserted,  that  the 
divine  purpose  respecting  the  salvation  of  sinners,  which 
is  so  often  spoken  of  in  Scripture,  is  grounded  altogeth- 
er on  the  foreknowledge  of  the  good  works  of  those, 
who  are  destined  to  salvation  ;  and  have,  in  this  view, 
called  the  purpose  of  God  conditional.  Orthodox  wri- 
ters have  denied  such  a  conditionality  as  this,  and  have 
justified  themselves  by  appealing  to  such  texts,  as  the 
following ;  2.  Tim.  i.  9,  "  God  hath  saved  us  and  called 
us  with  an  holy  calling,  not  according  to  our  works,  but 
according  to  his  own  purpose  and  grace,  which  was  giv- 
en  us   in  Christ   before   the   world  began."     Tit.  iii.  5. 


67 

••Not  by  works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done, 
but  according  to  his  mercy  he  saved  us."  God's  saving 
us  according  to  his  purpose  and  grace  is  here  contradis- 
tinguished to  his  saving  us  according  to  our  works  ;  and 
the  defenders  of  Orthodoxy  have  justly  considered  all 
such  representations  of  Scripture,  as  opposed  to  the 
opinion,  that  the  divine  purpose  is  conditional  in  the 
sense  above  mentioned. 

To  remove  all  appearances  of  inconsistency  between 
the  two  different  views  above  taken,  of  the  meaning  and 
propriety  of  the  word  unconditional,  in  relation  to  this 
subject,  it  is  only  necessary  to  make  two  obvious  re- 
marks. 1.  Those  things,  which  are  spoken  of  as  condi- 
tions on  the  part  of  man,  are  not  so,  in  any  degree,  in 
the  sense  of  merit,  and  therefore  take  nothing  from  the 
freeness  or  riches  of  divine  grace.  2.  That  which  is  re- 
ferred to  in  the  passages  above  cited,  where  all  condi- 
tionality  is  excluded,  appears  evidently  to  be  the  act  of 
God  in  the  first  renewal  of  the  sinner,  or  in  first  saving 
him  from  sin.  "  Who  hath  saved  us,  and  called  us  with 
an  holy  calling,  not  according  to  our  works,"  &c.  It  was 
the  commencement  of  the  work  of  God  in  salvation.  So 
in  the  parallel  text,  in  Titus.  "  Not  by  works  of  right- 
eousness which  we  have  done,  but  according  to  his 
mercy  he  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and 
renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  salvation  here  spok- 
en of,  as  excluding  all  consideration  of  works,  was  the 
act  of  God  in  regeneration, — the  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  This  point  is  made  still  clearer  by  Ephes.  ii,'4 
— 10.  Accordingly,  we  hold  it  as  a  fact,  universally, 
that  impenitent,  unrenewed  sinners  do  no  good  work, 
which  God  regards  as  a  condition  of  their  being  renew- 
ed, or  on  account  of  which  he  has  promised  them  re- 
generation : — that,  in  all  cases,  he  calls  and  renews  them, 


68 

according  to  his  own  purpose  and  grace.  Now  if  his 
merciful  act  in  their  renewal  to  holiness  is,  in  this  sense, 
unconditional ;  so  is  his  previous  purpose.  That  the  one 
is  so,  is  as  certain  and  unexceptionable,  as  that  the  other 
is. 

Such  are  my  views,  and,  if  1  mistake  not,  of  my 
brethren  generally,  respecting  this  part  of  the  subject. 
But  whenever  we  speak  of  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  the 
comforts  of  religion,  or  any  other  blessings,  which  God 
has  promised  to  bestow,  as  tokens  of  his  favor  to  his 
children,  whether  here  or  hereafter ;  we  are  led,  by 
the  tenor  of  Scripture,  to  understand  them  as  promised, 
not  only  on  the  ground  of  the  perfect  atonement  made 
by  the  Savior  of  sinners,  but  also  in  view  of  conditions 
to  be  performed  by  them. 

After  the  foregoing  explanations,  and  similar  ones 
from  others,  I  hope  the  doctrine  we  hold  respecting  the 
purpose  of  God  in  the  election  of  his  people,  or  his  agen- 
cy in  their  salvation,  will  no  longer  be  represented  as 
implying,  that  God,  in  this  respect,  bears  any  resem- 
blance to  a  capricious,  arbitrary,  or  despotic  ruler.  Al- 
though some  Orthodox  writers  may  have  inadvertently 
used  language,  which  might  lead  to  such  a  view  of  the 
character  of  God ;  yet  that  view  is  totally  repugnant  to 
our  feelings,  and  to  every  thing  which  our  doctrine  is 
intended  to  contain.  God  does,  indeed,  plainly  possess 
the  uncontrollable  power  of  an  absolute  monarch  ;  but  his 
uncontrollable  power  is  always  directed  by  infinite  wis- 
dom and  goodness.  Like  a  despotic  sovereign,  he  does 
indeed  act  according  to  his  own  will;  but  his  will,  be  it 
remembered,  is  the  will  of  a  wise  and  benevolent  ruler, 
a  friend  to  his  subjects ;  and  his  acting  in  all  things  ac- 
cording to  his  own  will,  instead  of  being  a  cause  of  dis- 
satisfaction and  alarm,  is   the  greatest  possible  security 


69 

to  the  interests  of  the  universe.  Like  an  absolute  mon- 
arch, God  may  also  frequently  act,  without  any  appar- 
ent reasons.  But  in  reality  there  is  no  part  of  his  ad- 
ministration, for  which  the  highest  and  best  reasons  do 
not  exist  in  his  own  mind. 

Now  the  danger  of  representing  the  character  and  ad- 
ministration of  God  by  the  language,  which  is  common- 
ly applied  to  the  character  and  administration  of  an 
absolute  earthly  sovereign,  is,  that  the  similitude, 
which  is  intended,  and  which  really  exists,  will  be  carri- 
ed too  far ;  that  instead  of  being  restricted  to  those 
points  in  which  a  similitude  would  be  honourable  to  God, 
it  will  be  understood  as  reaching  those,  in  which  a  si- 
militude would  be  a  stain  to  his  perfect  character.  The 
words  despot,  monarch,  absolute,  and  arbitrary  were  not 
originally  and  necessarily  expressive  of  any  bad  qualities. 
Despot  signifies  a  master,  a  prince  who  rules  with  unlim- 
ited power ;  monarch,  one  who  exercises  power  or  au- 
thority alone  ;  absolute,  complete,  unlimited  ;  arbitrary, 
according  to  one's  own  will.  They  all  admit  of  a  good 
sense  ;  and,  in  truth,  they  would  never  be  understood 
by  us  in  a  bad  sense,  had  they  not  become  associated  in 
our  minds  with  the  bad  qualities  of  those  earthly  masters 
or  rulers,  to  whom  they  have  been  applied.  But  incon- 
sequence of  this  association,  we  cannot  safely  apply  them, 
or  others  like  them,  to  God,  without  special  care  to  lim- 
it the  points  of  analogy,  which  are  intended.  And  in 
most  cases  of  the  kind,  even  this  precaution  would  not 
preclude  all  exposure  to  error ;  because  the  words  hav- 
ing acquired  a  bad  sense,  cannot  be  applied  to  any  one, 
not  even  to  God,  whatever  care  may  be  used,  without 
danger  of  conveying  more  or  less  of  that  bad  sense  to 
our  minds.  I  should  therefore,  think  it  unadvised,  in 
any  common  case,  to  make  use  of  such  terms,  as  those 


70 

abovementioned,  in  describing  the  character,  or  admin- 
istration of  God. 

It  is  said  by  our  opposers,  that  the  doctrine  we  main- 
tain on  this  subject,  makes  God  unjust. 

As  to  this  charge  of  injustice,  which  is  always  meant 
to  relate  to  those,  who  are  not  chosen  to  salvation,  the 
views  which  we  entertain,  and  which  appear  to  me  very 
satisfactory,  are  briefly  these.  The  Scriptures  teach, 
that  all  men  are  sinners,  and,  as  such,  children  of  wrath; 
that  if  God  should  be  strict  to  mark  iniquity,  no  man 
could  stand  before  him ;  that  salvation,  in  all  instances, 
is  of  grace.  Now  suppose  salvation  is  not  granted  to 
all.  Suppose  it  not  granted  to  any.  Is  God  unjust  f — - 
unjust  in  not  vouchsafing  to  men  that,  to  which  they  have 
no  claim  ?  unjust  in  inflicting  the  evil,  which  they  de- 
serve ?  The  divine  law  then  is  unjust.  For  how  can 
the  law  be  just  in  threatening  an  evil,  which  may  not  be 
justly  inflicted  ?  Further.  If  we  should  say,  God  can- 
not justly  withhold  the  blessings  of  salvation  in  the  in- 
stances here  intended  ;  this  would  be  the  same  as  say- 
ing, that  justice  requires  God  to  save  all.  But  the  Scrip- 
tures represent  it  not  only  as  an  unmerited  favor,  that 
God  saves  any,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  he  will  not 
save  all.  Is  God  then  chargeable  with  actual  injustice  ? 
But  if  God  is  just  in  annexing  such  a  penalty  to  his  law, 
and  just  in  executing  it ;  it  must  be  obvious  that  he  is 
equally  just  in  his  determination  to  do  so.  For  no  prin- 
ciple of  common  sense  can  be  more  plain  and  certain, 
than  that  it  is  just  for  the  omniscient  God  to  deter^ 
mine  beforehand  to  do  that,  which  it  is  just  for  him  ac- 
tually to  do.  No  imputation  of  injustice,  therefore,  can 
lie  against  the  previous  purpose  of  God  respecting  those 
who  are  not  saved,  which  does  not  lie  equally  against  his 
law,  and  his  administration; 


71 

Here  we  find  one  of  the  principal  sources  of  diffi- 
culty respecting  this  subject.  It  is  not  well  considered, 
that  the  divine  purpose  is  grounded  on  the  same  reasons, 
and  conformed  to  the  same  views,  with  the  divine  con- 
duct. When  God  punishes  transgressors,  he  does  it  for 
sufficient  reasons.  When  he  previously  determines  to 
punish  them,  it  is  for  the  same  reasons.  When  the 
Judge  shall  say  to  the  wicked,  "  depart  from  me,  ye  that 
work  iniquity  ;"  the  reason  of  the  sentence  is  obvious, 
namely,  that  they  had  worked  iniquity.  With  a  per- 
fect foreknowledge  of  that  fact,  and  altogether  on  that 
account,  he  determines  beforehand  to  pronounce  that 
sentence  against  them.  Thus  the  purpose  of  God  per- 
fectly corresponds  with  the  acts  of  his  government. 
Accordingly,  his  purpose  to  punish  is  no  more  absolute 
and  unconditional,  than  his  act  in  punishing.  And  the 
act  of  God  in  punishing  those,  who  transgress  his  law, 
is  no  more  absolute  and  unconditional,  than  the  act  of  a 
magistrate  in  punishing  transgressors  of  civil  law.  A 
good  ruler  punishes  only  for  offences  against  the  law  ; 
punishes  only  according  to  law  ;  or,  which  is  the  same 
thing,  according  to  the  ill  desert  of  offenders.  And  no 
good  ruler  can  ever  design  or  decree  punishment  on  any 
other  principles.  I  object  as  strongly,  as  any  opposer 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  purpose,  against  repre- 
senting God  as  intending  or  appointing  the  destruction 
of  sinners  absolutely  and  unconditionally,  without  regard 
to  justice,  and  goodness,  and  from  a  delight  in  seeing  the 
misery  of  his  creatures.  Such  a  representation  is  infi- 
nitely distant  from  the  truth.  And  whatever  unguarded 
expressions  Othodox  writers  may  have  sometimes  us- 
ed ;  I  am  persuaded  they  have  really  meant  nothing- 
contrary  to  the  sentiments,  which  I  have  exhibited. 

From  the  free  remarks  which  I  have  made  on  this 


72 

subject,  you  will  see  what  my  views  and  those  of  my 
Orthodox  brethren  are,  respecting  what  is  called  the 
divine  purpose  or  decree  of  reprobation.  It  is,  as  we  un- 
derstand the  subject,  the  determination  of  God,  the 
righteous  Governor  of  the  world,  to  punish  disobedient 
subjectsybr  their  sins,  and  according  to  their  deserts.  In 
one  respect,  therefore,  there  is  an  obvious  difference 
between  the  purpose  of  God  to  save,  and  his  purpose  to 
destroy  ;  a  difference  exactly  agreeing  with  that  which 
exists  between  the  act  of  God  in  saving,  and  his  act  in 
destroying.  He  saves  men  as  an  act  of  grace,  not  out 
of  respect  to  any  thing  in  them,  which  renders  them  de- 
serving of  salvation.  But  he  punishes  the  wicked  pure- 
ly out  of  respect  to  their  sins,  which  render  them  de- 
serving of  punishment.  He  executes  upon  them  sim- 
ply an  act  of  justice.  That  is,  in  a  word  ;  they,  who 
are  saved,  receive  a  good  which  they  do  not  deserve  ; 
but  they  who  are  destroyed,  receive  just  that  evil  which 
they  deserve.  Accordingly,  the  purpose  of  God,  in  the 
former  case,  is  a  purpose  to  bestow  upon  men  blessings, 
not  deserved  ;  but,  in  the  latter  case,  it  is  a  purpose  to 
inflict  upon  men  the  very  evil,  as  to  kind  and  degree, 
which  they  deserve. 

It  has  often  been  alleged,  as  an  objection  against  the 
doctrine  of  Election,  that  it  makes  God  a  respecter  of 
persons  ;  or  represents  him,  as  influenced   by  partiality. 

In  order  to  determine,  whether  this  objection  is  well 
founded,  we  must  inquire  what  respect  of  persons  is. 
The  word,  I  think,  has  the  same  sense  in  Scripture,  and 
in  common  discourse.  Let  us  then  see  what  its  signifi- 
cation is. — Levit.  xix.  15;  "  Thou  shalt  do  no  unright- 
eousness in  judgment ;  thou  shalt  not  respect  the  person 
of  the  poor,  nor  know  the  person  of  the  mighty  ;  but  in 
righteousness  shalt  thou  judge    thy  neighbor  ;"  that  is 


73 

thou  shalt  not  be  influenced  in  judgment  by  any  consid- 
eration of  the  poverty  or  riches,  the  weakness  or  pow- 
er of  those,  who  are  to  be  judged,  but  by  a  single  re- 
gard to  justice  and  truth.  In  2  Chron.  xix.  5 — 7,  Jc- 
hoshaphat  inculcated  strict  justice  and  fidelity  upon 
Judges  from  the  consideration,  that  with  God,  whose 
servants  they  were,  there  was  no  iniquity,  nor  respect  of 
persons,  nor  taking  of  gifts  ;  that  is,  that  he  was  never 
biassed  in  judgment  by  any  corrupt  passions,  personal 
attachments,  or  bribes,  but  acted  purely  out  of  regard 
to  justice.  See  also  Deut.  x.  17,  18,  where  the  people 
were  cautioned,  by  similar  language,  against  supposing 
that  God  would  feel  any  partial  respect  to  the  persons 
of  men,  or  that  he  would  not  exercise  a  just  and  equal 
regard  to  the  fatherless,  the  widow,  and  the  stranger. 
Acts  x.  34.  Peter  learnt  from  his  vision  at  Joppa,  and 
from  subsequent  events,  that  God  was  not  a  respecter  of 
persons  ;  that,  in  dispensing  his  blessings,  he  had  not 
that  partial  and  exclusive  regard  to  the  Jews,  which  had 
been  attributed  to  him,  but  that,  in  every  nation,  he 
that  feared  God,  and  worked  righteousness,  was  accept- 
ed. It  referred  to  the  special  favor  shown  to  Cornelius, 
a  sincere  worshipper  of  God  among  the  Gentiles.  So 
Rom.  ii.  11,  the  same  declaration  is  made,  to  show  that, 
in  his  final  judgment,  God  would  treat  all  men  on  the 
same  principle  of  impartial  justice,  without  the  least  re- 
gard to  any  national  distinction.  See  also  James  ii.  1 — 4, 
where  respect  of  persons  is  explained  to  be  a  partial  re- 
gard to  the  rich  and  splendid,  and  contempt  of  the 
poor. 

Now  if  respect  of  persons  is  really  what  I  have  rep- 
resented it  to  be ;  the  doctrine  of  Election,  which  we 
hold,  does  not  imply,  that  God  is  chargeable   with  it  in 

anv  degree.     It  implies  the  contrary.     For  the  doctrine 
10 


74 

asserts,  that  he  is  not  influenced  to  make  choice  of 
those  who  are  to  be  saved,  by  any  respect  to  their  per- 
sons, more  than  to  the  persons  of  others,  nor  by  a  re- 
gard to  any  thing  in  them,  or  in  their  circumstances,, 
which  renders  them  more  pleasing  to  him,  or  more  wor- 
thy of  his  favor,  than  others.  We  believe,  that  those, 
who  are  chosen  of  God  to  salvation,  are  not  chosen  be- 
cause they  were,  in  themselves,  more  worthy  of  this 
blessing,  than  others ;  that  God  looked  upon  their  mor- 
al feelings  and  conduct  with  the  same  disapprobation, 
and  had  the  same  view  of  their  ill  desert,  and  that  he 
chose  them,  as  we  may  say,  for  reasons  of  state, — for 
general  reasons  in  his  government,  which  he  has  not  re- 
vealed. He  did  it,  as  it  is  expressed  by  the  inspired 
writers,  "  according  to  the  counsel  of  his  own  will," — 
"  according  to  his  gocd  pleasure," — or  "  because  it  seem- 
ed good  in  his  sight."  These  phrases  plainly  denote 
that  the  purpose  and  administration  of  God  are,  in  this 
respect,  different  from  what  our  wisdom  would  dictate, 
or  our  affection  choose  ;  that  they  cannot  be  accounted 
for  by  any  principles  known  to  us,  but  result  from  the 
infinite  perfection  of  God,  and  are  conformed  to  reasons, 
which  he  has  concealed  in  his  own  mind.  These  are  our 
views.  Accordingly,  when,  from  the  deep  veneration  we 
feel  for  the  unsearchable  wisdom  of  God,  and  an  honest 
regard  to  what  we  conceive  to  be  the  obvious  sense  of 
various  passages  in  his  word,  we  assert  the  doctrine  of 
Election ;  we  are  at  the  greatest  possible  distance  from 
imputing  to  him  any  thing  like  partiality,  or  respect  of 
persons.  We  believe  he  acts,  and  determines  to  act, 
altogether  from  different  and  higher  reasons.  And  we 
are  satisfied,  that  those  reasons  are  perfectly  wise  and 
benevolent,  not  because  we  distinctly  know  what  they 
are,  but  because  we  believe  in  the  moral  perfection  of 


75 

God,  and  in  cases  the  most  profoundly  mysterious,  are 
sure,  that  his  designs  and  actions  are  right. 

Will  any  one  still  assert,  that,  if  God  chooses  men  to 
salvation,  as  the  doctrine  of  Election  implies,  it  must 
necessarily  be  from  partiality,  or  respect  of  persons  ? 
Then  it  behooves  him  to  prove,  that  God  cannot 
choose  them  from  any  other  motive  ; — that  it  is  impossi- 
ble there  should  be  any  other  reason  for  making  the 
difference.  Unless  this  is  made  to  appear  by  strong 
and  conclusive  arguments  ;  we  may  still  believe,  that 
God  does  thus  choose  men  to  salvation,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  believe  that  he  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  but 
that  in  this  case,  as  in  all  others,  he  is  influenced  by 
reasons,  which  are  perfectly  consentaneous  to  his  own 
eternal  wisdom  and  benevolence,  and  which,  if  known  to 
us,  would  appear  in  the  highest  degree  honorable  to 
his  character. 

Another  objection,  often  urged  against  the  doctrine 
of  Election,  is,  that  it  destroys  free  agency,  and  makes 
men  mere  machines. 

I  reply  ;  that,  so  far  as  our  honest  convictions  are 
concerned,  this  objection  is  groundless  ;  because  we  en- 
tertain no  views  of  the  doctrine,  which  seem  to  us  in- 
consistent, in  the  smallest  degree,  with  the  most  perfect 
free  agency. 

But  it  may  be  said  that,  whether  we  are  aware  of 
it  or  not,  the  opinion,  which  we  entertain  respecting 
the  divine  purpose,  is  really  inconsistent  with  free  moral 
agency. 

In  reply  to  this,  I  have  time  only  to  state,  in  few 
words,  the  reflections,  which  have  been  most  satisfacto- 
ry to  my  own  mind. 

The  purpose  of  God,  determining  the  salvation  of  his 
people,  needs  not  to  be  supposed  inconsistent  with  their 


76 

moral  agency,  unless  the  purpose  of  God  respecting  the 
conduct  or  condition  of  men  is  so  in  every  case.  I  make 
it  then  a  general  inquiry.  Is  it  in  all  cases,  repugnant  to 
the  notion  of  the  free  moral  agency  of  men,  that  God 
should  have  any  previous  purpose  or  design  respecting 
their  actions  ?  If  any  man,  accustomed  to  thorough  in- 
vestigation, should  assert  this  broad  principle  ;  I  should 
be  much  inclined  to  ask  for  his  reasons. — Are  the  acts 
of  the  understanding,  the  affection,  or  the  will  of  man 
deprived  of  their  own  proper  nature,  because  they  are 
conformed  to  a  divine  purpose  ?  Is  any  one  thing,  great 
or  small,  which  goes  to  constitute  moral  agency,  taken 
away  or  in  any  degree  altered,  by  the  simple  fact,  that 
it  exists  according  to  God's  eternal  plan  ?  It  would 
seem  to  me  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  God's  purpose, 
or  will,  if  it  has  any  influence,  must  make  things  what 
they  are,  instead  of  depriving  them  of  their  proper  na- 
ture.-— I  first  look  at  things,  both  in  the  natural  and 
moral  world,  as  they  exist.  I  try  to  discover  what  they 
are.  Then,  as  they  are  of  necessity  dependant  on  God, 
I  conclude  they  must  exist  according  to  his  purpose.  I 
find  myself  a  moral  being ;  that  is,  I  am  conscious  of 
those  powers,  and  those  actions,  which  give  me  the 
clearest  notion  of  a  moral  agent,  and  which,  to  my  per- 
fect satisfaction,  render  me  accountable  to  a  moral  law 
and  government.  I  then  conclude,  as  I  am  a  creature 
of  God,  that  I  exist  as  I  am,  namely,  a  moral  agent,  ac- 
cording to  his  purpose.  And  if  God's  purpose,  deter- 
mining my  existence  as  a  moral  agent,  is  consistent  with 
my  actually  existing  as  such  ;  why  may  not  his  purpose, 
determining  the  exercises  of  my  moral  agency,  be  con- 
3istent  with  the  existence  of  such  moral  exercises?  The 
following  ppsitions,  which  I  think  conformable  to  sound 
reason  and  philosophy,  express  my  views  in  brief.     God 


77 

first  determines,  that  man  shall  be  a  moral  agent,  and  that 
in  all  the  circumstances  of  his  existence,  he  shall  possess 
and  exercise  all  his  moral  powers.  And  then  God  deter- 
mines, that,  in  the  perfect  exercise  of  all  his  moral  powers, 
he  shall  act  in  a  certain  manner,  and  form  a  certain  char- 
acter. The  determination  of  God.  thus  understood, 
instead  of  being  inconsistent  with  free  moral  agency,  does 
in  fact  secure  moral  agency.  In  regard  to  this  subject, 
it  aims  at  nothing,  and  tends  to  produce  nothing,  but 
the  uninterrupted  exercise  of  all  our  moral  powers. 

But  I  drop  all  reasoning  of  this  sort,  and  appeal  to 
facts.  There  are  numerous  instances  mentioned  in  Scrip- 
ture, in  which  God  is  expressly  declared  to  have  predeter- 
mined the  actions  of  men  ;  and  yet  they  had  as  much 
moral  freedom,  and  felt  themselves  as  worthy  of  praise 
or  blame  in  those  actions,  as  in  any  other.  The  exam- 
ples of  this,  which  every  where  occur  in  the  sacred  vol- 
ume, prove  incontrovertibly,  that  the  purpose  of  God  is 
consistent  with  moral  agency.  For  in  those  cases,  in 
which  we  certainly  know  that  a  divine  purpose  has  ex- 
isted, because  it  has  been  expressly  declared,  there  has 
been,  in  every  respect,  as  much  evidence  of  moral  agency, 
as  in  any  case  whatever,  and  as  much,  as  we  can  conceive 
possible.  Not  the  least  thing,  which  can  belong  to  the 
powers  of  a  moral  agent,  or  to  the  manner  of  exercising 
them,  has  been  taken  away,  or  obstructed,  by  the  divine 
purpose.  Nay,  I  should  rather  say,  that  those  very 
powers  of  a  moral  agent,  and  the  proper  manner 
of  exercising  them,  have  been  the  true  result  of  that 
purpose. 

Now  admitting  in  the  cases  referred  to,  even  if 
they  were  much  fewer  than  they  are,  that  the  purpose 
of  God  has  consisted  with  the  unimpared  moral  agen- 


78 

cy  of  man  ;  I  find  no  difficulty  in  admitting,  that  it 
may  in  any  other  case.  And  if  so,  the  objection  we 
have  been  considering,  that  the  doctrine  of  Election  de- 
stroys moral  agency,  and  makes  men  mere  machines,  los- 
es all  its  force. 

I  shall  notice  one  more  objection  against  the  doctrine 
of  Election,  namely,  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  sinceri- 
ty of  God  in  the  declarations  of  his  word. 

The  answer  to  this  objection,  which  appears  to  me 
the  most  satisfactory,  consists  in  assigning  to  the  doctrine 
its  proper  form  and  relations.  When  I  undertake  to 
explain  the  purpose  of  God  respecting  those  who  are  to 
be  saved,  I  consider  it  essential  to  say,  that  it  is  to  be  so 
understood,  as  not  to  contradict  his  truth  and  sincerity 
in  any  of  the  declarations  of  his  word.  If,  in  connex- 
ion with  God's  purpose  respecting  the  salvation  of 
his  people,  the  Bible  teaches,  that  he  commands  men 
universally  to  repent,  and  invites  them  to  accept  eternal 
life,  and  that  he  is  perfectly  ready  to  grant  them  the 
blessings  of  salvation,  on  the  most  reasonable  and  gra- 
cious terms  ;  our  faith  must  receive  the  doctrine,  as  hav- 
ing this  form,  and  standing  in  this  relation.  It  is  thus  the 
doctrine  is  actually  received  by  Orthodox  ministers  gen- 
erally. While  they  believe  the  doctrine  of  Election, 
they  do  undoubtingly  believe  and  expressly  teach,  the 
perfect  sincerity  of  God  in  all  his  addresses  to  men, 
whether  chosen  to  salvation,  or  not ;  and  they  pre- 
sent the  invitations,  of  God's  word  to  sinners,  with- 
out any  reference  to  that  distinction,  and  with  as  much 
earnestness,  and  as  much  belief  of  the  divine  sincer- 
ity, as  if  they  had  no  conception  of  any  divine  pur- 
pose. And  my  apprehension  is,  that  all  this  is  per- 
fectly just;  and  that  if  we  had  a  thorough  acquaint- 
ance   with  the  subject,  we  should  see,   that  the  pur- 


79 

pose  of  God,  and  his  corresponding  agency  are  of  such 
a  character,  that  they  occasion  no  difficulty  at  all  re- 
specting his  sincerity.  These  two  points  of  divine  truth 
are  entirely  distinct.  They  relate  to  the  character  of 
God,  and  to  the  state  of  man,  in  different  ways.  And 
when  they  are  proved,  each  one  by  its  own  proper  evi- 
dence, we  receive  them  both,  exactly  as  we  receive  dif- 
ferent truths,  made  known  to  us  in  different  ways, 
in  any  of  the  sciences.  As  to  the  fact  of  their  consisten- 
cy, it  is  sufficient  to  satisfy  us,  to  find,  that  they  are  both 
supported  by  conclusive  evidence,  and  that  neither  of 
them  palpably  contradicts  the  other.  If  any  man  asserts 
that  there  is  an  inconsistency  between  these  two  doc- 
trines, he  must  prove  it.  And  in  proving  it,  he  must  re- 
member, that  it  will  be  difficult  to  satisfy  thinking  men, 
unless  he  can  make  it  appear,  that  the  evidence  which 
supports  one  or  the  other  of  them  is  defective,  or  that 
the  main  proposition,  contained  in  one  of  them,  is,  in  the 
same  sense  in  which  it  is  there  affirmed,  contradicted  or 
denied  in  the  other. 

In  closing  my  remarks  on  this  part  of  the  subject,  I 
am  willing  to  concede,  that  those  views  of  the  doctrine 
of  Election,  against  which  Whitby,  and  many  other  re- 
spectable writers  direct  their  principal  arguments,  are 
justly  liable  to  objection.  And  if,  in  stating  the  doctrine, 
we  should  copy  the  example  of  some  of  its  advocates, 
and  call  the  purpose  of  God  an  absolute,  irresistible  un- 
conditional, unfrustrable  decree,  using  those  epithets  abund- 
antly, and  without  qualification,  and  in  such  a  manner,  as 
would  imply,  that  the  divine  purpose  is  unreasonable,  or 
oppressive,  or  the  divine  agency  in  executing  it,  compul- 
sory ;  we  should  really  give  the  doctrine  such  a  charac- 
ter, that  it  could  never  be  received  by  men  of  rational 
*nd  candid  minds.     This  is  the  apology,  which    I    have 


80 

been  accustomed  to  make  for  some  Christians  who  exhib- 
it marks  of  sincere  piety  to  God,  and  heartfelt  rever- 
ence for  his  word,  who  yet  hesitate  to  admit,  in  so  many 
words,  the  doctrine  of  Election.  What  they  disbelieve 
is  not  the  simple  doctrine,  as  we  understand  it,  but  some- 
thing which  has  been  artfully,  or  injudiciously  appended 
to  it.  Cases  of  this  kind  have  led  me  to  reflect  on  the 
importance  of  special  caution,  as  to  the  manner  of  ex- 
plaining and  defending  this  profound  and  holy  doctrine. 
I  have  now  done,  as  concisely  as  possible,  what  I 
thought  necessary  to  explain  the  proper  form  and  rela- 
tions of  this  doctrine,  and  to  guard  it  against  misappre- 
hension. I  make  these  explanations  a  part  of  the  state- 
ment of  the  doctrine.  And  it  must,  I  think,  occur  to  my 
readers,  that,  when  I  use  such  care  to  shape  and  limit 
the  doctrine,  and  to  guard  it  against  misapprehension,  I  do 
but  imitate  what  the  Apostle  Paul  did  in  other  cases. 
His  opposers  were  inclined  to  put  a  wrong  construction 
upon  his  doctrines,  and  to  make  wrong  inferences  from 
them.  "  If  our  unrighteousness  commend  the  righteous- 
ness of  God,  what  shall  we  say  ?  Is  God  unrighteous 
who  taketh  vengeance  ?  God  forbid." — Again,  he  taught, 
in  respect  of  penitent  sinners,  that  "  where  sin  abound- 
ed, grace  did  much  more  abound."  He  then  reasons 
with  objectors.  "  What  shall  we  say  then?  shall  we 
sin,  that  grace  mav  abound  ?  God  forbid."  We  make 
use  of  the  same  caution  on  the  present  subject.  The 
Scriptures  teach  that  God  has  given  to  Christ  a  portion 
of  the  human  race  ;  that  all,  who  have  been  thus  given 
to  him,  shall  come  to  him,  and  be  saved,  without  any  ex- 
ception ;  and  that  they  arc  saved  according  to  God's 
eternal  purpose.  This  is  what  we  mean  by  the  doc- 
trine of  Election.  But  is  this  purpose  of  God  absolute 
und  arbitrary,   in   the   sense    in   which   these   terms  are 


81 

commonly  applied  to  man  ?  God  forbid. — Is  this  pur- 
pose of  God,  in  all  respects,  unconditional  ?  By  no 
means.  For  without  the  shedding  of  blood  there  can  be 
no  remission  ;  nor  can  any  be  received  into  Christ's 
kingdom  without  repentance  and  faith. — But  if  God  de- 
termines to  save  only  a  part  of  mankind,  is  he  not  un- 
just ?  God  forbid.  There  is  certainly  no  injustice  to 
those  who  are  saved  ;  nor  can  there  be  any  to  those, 
who  are  not  saved,  if  their  sufferings  are  only  what  they 
deserve.  But  is  not  the  purpose  of  God  in  this  respect 
chargeable  with  partiality,  or  respect  of  persons  ?  We 
say,  God  forbid.  He  makes  the  difference  on  princi- 
ples, or  for  reasons  perfectly  agreeable  to  infinite  wis- 
dom and  goodness. — But  does  not  God's  purpose  to  save 
liis  people,  or  his  agency  in  executing  that  purpose,  de- 
stroy their  free  agency,  and  make  them  machines  ?  By 
no  means.  They  are  as  free  in  this  case  as  in  any  oth- 
er; as  free  as  they  could  be,  were  there  no  divine  pur- 
pose. Finally  ;  is  not  this  immutable  purpose  of  God 
inconsistent  with  the  truth  and  sincerity  of  his  propo- 
sals of  mercy  to  sinners  ?  We  say  here  also,  God  for- 
bid. His  purpose  no  more  interferes  with  his  sincerity, 
than  it  does  with  any  other  divine  attribute,  or  with 
any  other  truth.  In  his  offer  of  salvation,  he  treats  men 
as  moral  agents  ;  and  he  always  has  bestowed  salvation 
upon  those,  who  have  accepted  his  offer  in  the  mariner 
proposed;  and  he  would  have  bestowed  it  upon  those 
who  perish,  if  they  had  in  the  same  manner,  complied 
with  the  conditions.  Who  then  can  impeach  his  sin- 
cerity ? 

You  now  see  what  we  mean  by  the  doctrine  of 
Election,  and  in  what  manner  we  believe  it.  As  the 
result  of  his  own  unsearchable  wisdom  and  grace,  and 
for  reasons  which  relate  to  the  great  ends  of  his  admin- 

11 


82 

istration,  God  eternally  purposed  to  save  a  great  num- 
ber of  our  race,  and  purposed  to  save  them  precisely  in 
the  manner,  in  which  he  does  actually  save  them.  Now 
every  man,  who  duly  weighs  the  subject,  must  perceive, 
that,  according  to  this  statement,  the  notion  of  a  pre- 
vious divine  purpose  is  attended  with  no  peculiar  difficul- 
ty. If  the  divine  purpose  exactly  corresponds  with  the 
divine  conduct,  our  whole  inquiry  may  properly  relate 
to  that  conduct.  For  if  the  divine  conduct  in  saving 
men  is  unobjectionable  ;  the  divine  purpose,  of  which 
that  conduct  is  the  accomplishment,  must  be  equally  un- 
objectionable. Whatever  it  is  proper  for  God  to  do,  it 
is  proper  for  him  to  determine  to  do.  And  whether 
that  determination  precede  the  action  by  a  longer  or 
shorter  space,  its  character  is  the  same. 

After  coming  to  this  article  of  divine  truth,  concern- 
ing which  so  many  mistakes  have  been  entertained,  and 
against  which  so  many  objections  have    been  arrayed,  1 
felt  a  desire  to  disclose  to  my  readers,  with   the  utmost 
frankness,  my  inmost  thoughts  upon  the  subject  ;    being 
fully  persuaded,   that   the  doctrine,   properly  stated,  is 
honorable  to  God ;  that  it  is  abundantly  confirmed  by 
the  scriptures,   and   has   strong  claims   upon   our  faith. 
Indeed  we  should  find  it  difficult  to  see,  how  any  objec- 
tion could  ever  be  urged  against  it,  were  it  not  for  the 
natural  repugnance,  which  according  to  the  word  of  God, 
exists  in  the  heart  of  man,  against  the  doctrines  of  divine 
truth,  and  which,  to  our  great  discomfort,  and  with  a  full 
conviction  of  its  unreasonableness  and  criminality,  we  have 
felt  in  ourselves. — Were  it  not  for  this  repugnance,  which 
plainly  shows  the  moral  disorder  of  the  human  mind,  no 
man,  we  think,  could  be  found,  who    would    not  regard 
the  doctrine  with  the   most  cordial   acquiescence.     For, 
my  respected  readers,  the  precious  blessings  of  salvation 


83 

must  be  ultimately,  either  in  the  hands  of  God,  or  of 
man.  The  extent,  to  which  they  shall  be  received,  must 
be  determined  by  God,  or  by  man.  The  Scriptures 
teach,  and  facts  teach,  that  God  has  reserved  this  great 
concern  in  his  own  hands ;  that  he  "  saves  men  accord- 
ing to  his  own  purpose  and  grace  ;"  or  which  is  the  same 
thing,  that  he  hath  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have  mercy." 
I  make  the  appeal  to  your  impartial  judgment,  whether 
this  momentous  concern  could  be  in  better  hands ; 
whether  we  have  not  reason  for  unbounded  confidence 
in  the  purpose  and  administration  of  a  Being,  who  is  in- 
finitely wise  and  good  ;  and  whether  any  sentiment  re- 
specting this  whole  subject  can  be  more  reasonable  in 
itself,  or  more  suitable  for  us,  than  that,  which  was  utter- 
ed with  so  much  joy  by  the  blessed  Jesus,  respecting 
this  very  doctrine  ;  Even  so,  Father,  for  so  it  seemeth 
good  in  thy  sight. 


LETTER  IX. 

My  respected  friends, 

If  there  is  any  one  doctrine  of  revelation,  which  the 
Orthodox  distinguish,  in  point  of  importance,  from  all  oth- 
ers, it  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement.  My  design  in 
this  Letter  is,  not  to  write  a  treatise  on  this  subject,  but 
to  expose  certain  erroneous  methods  of  reasoning  re- 
specting it,  to  clear  away  some  of  the  objections 
and  difficulties,  which  have  been  supposed  to  attend 
it,  and  so  to  prepare  the  way  for  a  fair  considera- 
tion of  its  truth  and  importance.  This  is  all  which  the 
nature  of  my  undertaking  requires. 

Here,  as  in  other  cases,  a  regard  to  truth  obliges  me 


84 

to  say,  that  Unitarians  have  greatly  misrepresented  our 
opinions.     The  Author  of  the  Sermon  before  us  gives  it 
as  a  part  of  the  Orthodox  system,  that  "God  took  upon 
him  human  nature,  that  he  might  pay  to  his  own  justice 
the  debt  of  punishment  incurred  by  men,  and  might  en- 
able himself  to  exercise  mercy."     He  undertakes  in  an- 
other place  to  express  our  opinion  in  still  stronger  terms  ; 
"  that  God  took  human  nature,  that  he  might  appease 
his  own  anger  towards  men,  or  make  an  infinite  satisfac- 
tion to  his  own  justice ;"  and  after  giving  our  opinion 
this  shape,  he  asks  very  earnestly,  for  one  text  where  it 
is  taught.      We  reply,  that  an  opinion,  thus  shaped  and 
colored,  is   taught  nowhere  in   the   Bible,  and  believed 
by  no  respectable  Trinitarians.      It   is   an  essential  part 
of  our  faith,  that  there  is  a  real  distinction  between  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  and  that  the  distinction  is  of  such  a 
nature,  that  they  are  two,  and  are  in  Scripture  repre- 
sented to  be  two,  as  really,  as  Moses  and  Aaron,  though 
not  in  the  same  sense,  nor  in  any  sense  inconsistent  with 
their  being  one.      In  consequence  of  this  distinction,  we 
consider  it  perfectly  proper  to  say,  that  the  Father  sends 
the  Son  to  die  for  sinners,  and  accepts   the  sacrifice   he 
makes  ;  that  the  Son  obeys  the  Father,  seeks  his  glory, 
&c.     We  find  that  the  Scripture  does  thus   represent 
them  ;    and  though   in  our   view    they  both  possess  the 
same  divine  perfection,  we  believe  that,  in  consequence 
of  the  distinction   between   them,  this  representation  of 
Scripture  is  just.     We  pretend  not,  with  minds  so  limit- 
ed as  ours,  to  be  able  to   know  the   intrinsic   nature,  or 
the  ground  of  this  distinction  ;    but  its  results  we  know, 
because  the  Bible  reveals  them  ;    and  we  believe  the 
distinction  to  be  correspondent  with  what  is  thus  reveal- 
ed.    So  that   it   is   something   quite   diverse    from  the 
form  of  sound  words,  which  we  adopt,  and  quite  diverse 


85 

from  our  belief,  to  say,  that  "  God  sent  himself," — "  that 
God  took  human  nature,  that  he  might  appease  his  own 
anger,  and  enable  himself  to  exercise  mercy."  And  if 
any  writer  should  still  say  that,  if  the  Son  shares 
divine  perfection  with  the  Father,  it  is  impossible  there 
should  be  any  such  distinction,  as  the  Scripture  makes 
between  them  ;  he  would  indeed  repeat  that  which  has 
been  said  by  a  succession  of  writers  from  the  Fratres 
Poloni  down  to  the  present  day,  but  which,  so  far  as  I 
know,  has  had  little  better  proof,  than  strong  affir- 
mation. 

But  it  is  not  to  my  purpose  to  go  into  any  argument 
in  proof  of  the  personal  distinction  in  the  Godhead  ;  but 
merely  to  say,  that  the  passages,  above  quoted  from  the 
Sermon,  and  a  multitude  of  other  passages,  which  might 
be  quoted  from  Unitarian  writers,  are  far  from  being  a 
true  and  impartial  representation  of  our  faith.  They 
are  indeed  calculated  to  slur  the  Orthodox  doctrine  of 
the  Atonement.  But  with  every  sober,  honest  man,  the 
question  will  be,  are  they  just  ? — It  is  as  plain  to  us,  as 
to  this  writer,  that  God,  as  God,  cannot  be  a  sufferer, 
or  bear  a  penalty.  And  hence  we  infer  the  necessity 
of  the  incarnation.  "The  Word,"  the  divine  Redeem- 
er, "  was  made  flesh,"  and  thus  was  put  into  a  capacity 
to  suffer  and  die. 

The  Author  of  this  Sermon,  and  other  Unitarian 
writers  seem  to  think,  that  the  idea,  which  is  conveyed 
to  common  minds  by  the  Orthodox  system,  is  "  that 
Christ's  death  has  an  influence  in  making  God  placable 
or  merciful,  in  quenching  his  wrath,  and  awakening  his 
kindness  towards  men."  This  representation  demands 
particular  attention. 

I  observe,  then,  that  it  is  uniformly  the  sentiment  of 
the  Orthodox,  that  the  origin,  the  grand  moving  cause  of 


86 

the  whole  work  of  redemption,  was  the  infinite  love,  benigni- 
ty, or  mercy  of  God  ;  and  that  it  is  purely  in  consequence 
of  this  love,  that  he  appointed  a  Mediator,  and  adopted 
every  measure,  which  he  saw  to  be  necessary  for  the 
salvation  of  man.  The  goodness,  mercy,  or  placability 
of  God,  considered  as  an  attribute  of  his  character, 
could  then  be  neither  produced  nor  increased  by  the 
atonement  of  Christ ;  as  the  atonement  itself  owed  its 
existence  wholly  to  that  eternal,  immutable  goodness. 
This  view  of  the  subject,  which  we  derive  from  John 
iii.  16,  and  many  other  texts  of  similar  import,  we  incul- 
cate with  more  than  ordinary  frequency  and  earnestness. 
We  believe  that  it  is  essential  to  the  honor  of  the  di- 
vine character,  and  to  the  sincerity  and  comfort  of  chris- 
tian devotion.  If  we  have  ever  made  use  of  language, 
or  indulged  opinions,  in  the  smallest  degree  unfavorable 
to  this  sentiment,  we  deplore  the  error  we  have  com- 
mitted. And  whenever  we  find  a  fellow  creature,  who 
has  entertained  a  different  sentiment,  we  will  vie  with 
the  Author  of  this  Sermon,  in  our  efforts  to  correct  a 
mistake,  which  we  regard  with  so  much  horror. 

But  how  happens  it,  that  Unitarians  have  so  often, 
and  so  materially  misapprehended  our  opinions  on  this 
momentous  subject  ?  The  only  occasion  we  have  given 
for  their  misapprehension  has  been,  the  use  of  strong 
metaphorical  language.  It  has  been  common  for  Ortho- 
dox writers  and  preachers,  especially  when  they  have 
aimed  to  move  the  affections  of  men,  or  to  impress  the 
truth  upon  them  deeply,  to  represent  Christ,  as  rescu- 
ing sinners  from  the  vengeance  of  God,  or  shielding 
them  from  the  arrows  of  his  vengeance  ;  as  appeasing, 
or  turning  away  his  anger,  staying  his  fury,  quenching 
his  wrath  or  vengeance,   divesting  his  throne  of  its  ter« 


87 

rors,   satisfying  his  justice,  delivering  men  from  the  de- 
mands of  his  dreadful  law,  &c. 

Now  I  pretend  not  that  this  language  is  exactly  like 
the  language  of  the  Scriptures.  But  the  resemblance 
is  so  great,  that  no  objection  can  possibly  lie  against  the 
one,  which  does  not  he  equally  against  the  other.  To 
make  this  perfectly  clear,  I  shall  give  a  few  examples 
of  the  manner,  in  which  both  the  Old  Testament  and 
the  New  frequently  speak  of  God.  Psalm  xc.  7.  "  We 
are  consumed  by  thine  anger."  Isa.  v.  25.  "  His  anger 
is  not  turned  away  ;" — xxx.  30.  "  The  Lord  shall  show 
the  indignation  of  his  anger  ;" — xl.  25.  "  He  poured  on 
him  the  fury  of  his  anger;" — lxvi.  15.  "The  Lord  will 
come  to  render  his  anger  with  fury."  Hosea  xi.  9.  **  I 
will  execute  the  fierceness  of  mine  anger."  Deut.  xxix. 
30.  "The  anger  of  the  Lord  and  his  jealousy  shall 
smoke  against  that  man."  In  other  places  the  anger  of 
the  Lord  is  said  to  be  kindled.  It  is  said,  that  he  is  angry 
with  the  wicked  every  day ;  that  he  hath  whet  his 
sword  ;  that  he  hath  bent  his  bow,  and  made  it  ready  ; 
that  he  revengeth  and  is  furious;  and  that  he  will  meet 
his  enemies,  as  a  bear  bereaved  of  her  whelps.  The  writ- 
ers of  the  New  Testament  sometimes  use  similar  phrase- 
ology. They  speak  of  the  indignation  and  wrath  of  God, 
and  represent  vengeance  as  his  prerogative. — The  Scrip- 
tures also  represent  God  as  turning  or  being  turned  from 
his  anger,  from  the  fierceness  of  his  anger,  and  from  his 
hot  displeasure.  This  was  the  familiar  language  of  his- 
tory and  devotion  under  the  former  dispensation.  And 
we  well  know  that  the  God,  whom  Moses,  David,  and 
the  prophets  worshipped,  was  the  God  and  Father  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

It  will  be  said,  that  the  language  above  cited  is  met- 
aphorical.    Undoubtedly  it  is.      And  so  is   the  language. 


88     f 

which  is  used  by  Orthodox  writers  on  the  subject  of  the 
atonement.  The  Scripture  metaphors,  which  I  have 
brought  into  view,  are  drawn  from  the  same  sources,  and 
are  of  the  same  nature  with  those,  which  are  objected 
to  in  the  writings  of  the  Orthodox.  And  I  am  sure  that 
no  advocate  for  Orthodoxy,  how  great  soever  the  warmth 
of  his  natural  temperament,  and  how  glowing  soever  his 
imagination  and  his  style,  has  ever,  even  in  poetry,  used 
bolder  metaphors  respecting  God,  than  are  found  in  the 
sacred  writers.  Where  shall  we  find  imagery  more  ter- 
rific, than  in  those  passages  of  Scripture,  in  which  God 
is  represented  as  full  of  anger  and  vengeance,  even  the 
fierceness  and  heat  of  anger,  so  that  his  wrath  smokes 
and  burns  against  the  wicked  ; — in  which  his  fury  is  rep- 
resented to  be  like  the  fury  of  a  bear  bereaved  of  her 
whelps  ; — in  which  too  he  is  set  forth,  as  a  terrible  ex- 
ecutioner, or  warrior,  with  his  sharp  sword,  or  with  his 
bow  and  arrows,  ready  for  the  work  of  destruction  ? 
And  what  advocates  for  the  Atonement  have  employed 
language  more  highly  figurative,  than  we  find  in  those 
passages,  in  which  God  is  said  to  cause  his  anger  to  cease, 
or  to  be  turned,  by  prayer,  from  the  fierceness  of  his 
wrath  ?  Even  if  we  should  familiarly  speak  of  the  Atone- 
ment in  the  language,  which  the  Author  of  the  sermon 
thinks  so  exceptionable,  and  should  represent  it  as  de- 
signed to  "  render  God  merciful,  to  quench  his  wrath, 
and  awaken  his  kindness  towards  men  ;"  we  might  very 
safely  rest  our  justification  for  the  use  of  such  meta- 
phorical language,  on  the  example  of  men,  who  spake 
as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Will  it  be  said,  that  the  bold  metaphors,  above  cit- 
ed from  the  Scriptures,  were  peculiar  to  the  idiom  of  the 
Eastern  language,  especially  the  language  of  the  ancient 
Hebrews,  and  that  they  are  inadmissible  under  the  dis- 


89 

pensation  oi'  the  Gospel  ?  1  grant  that  they  beloliged  to 
the  idiom  of  the  Eastern  nations,  especially  of  the  an- 
cient Hebrew  writers.  But  it  must  be  remembered, 
that  Christ,  in  the  most  unqualified  terms,  recommend- 
ed the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  to  his  disci- 
pies ;  and  also  that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
thought  it  proper  to  quote,  without  palliation  or  explan- 
ation, some  of  the  metaphorical  passages  referred  to, 
and  sometimes,  with  similar  metaphors,  to  enliven  their 
own  style.  And  surely  it  cannot  be  thought  strange, 
that  a  Christian  minister,  who  is  accustomed  to  enter- 
tain so  high  a  reverence  for  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and 
to  look  to  them,  as  containing  every  thing  pure  and  ex- 
cellent, both  in  matter  and  form,  should  infuse  into  his 
preaching  or  writing  the  same  kind  of  metaphor,  as  that 
which  abounds  in  them.  It  has  generally  been  consid- 
ered best  by  Unitarians,  if  I  mistake  not,  as  well  as  by 
others,  to  keep  as  near,  as  may  be,  to  the  peculiar  phraseol- 
ogy of  the  Scriptures.  Why,  then,  are  we  blamed  for 
doing  it  here  ?  It  is  not  very  easy  to  account  for  the 
manner  in  which  Unitarian  writers  have  treated  this 
thing.  If  they  acknowledge  that  the  language  of  Scrip* 
ture,  above  cited,  is  to  be  understood  as  highly  metaphor' 
ical ;  why  should  they  suppose  that  similar  language  in 
our  sermons  and  books  of  divinity  is  meant  to  be  under- 
stood literally  ?  The  moment  they  interpret  our  lan- 
guage, as  they  interpret  the  figurative  language  of  the 
Bible,  the  difficulty  vanishes. 

But  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  metaphorical  language 
now  under  consideration?  To  satisfy  ourselves  on  this 
subject,  it  is  only  necessary  to  consider  the  nature  and  de- 
sign of  metaphors,  and  the  manner  in  which  we  learn  their 
signification.  In  metaphorical  language,  words  are  taken 
out  of  their  proper,  literal  sense. and  for  the  sake  ofillustra- 
12 


96 

tion  or  impression,  are  used  to  denote  other  things,  which 
are  conceived  to  have  some  resemblance  to  what  is  de- 
noted by  the  literal  sense.  It  is  essential  to  a  metaphor, 
that  there  should  be,  in  some  respect,  a  real  or  appar- 
ent resemblance  between  the  proper  sense  of  the  word, 
and  the  metaphorical.  How,  then,  are  we  to  interpret 
the  metaphorical  language  of  Scripture,  above  cited  ? 
Does  it  imply  that  God  himself  is  really  like  an  angry, 
fierce,  revengeful  man,  who  is  impelled  by  his  outrage- 
ous passions  to  inflict  pain,  and  commit  acts  of  violence  ? 
Infinitely  otherwise.  What  the  Bible  makes  known  re- 
specting God,  and  all  our  best  conceptions  of  his  charac- 
ter forbid  it.  Every  divine  perfection  forbids  it.  And 
common  sense  forbids  it.  Nor  is  it  the  least  objection  to 
the  use  of  this  species  of  metaphor,  that  the  literal  sense 
would  be  contrary  to  truth,  and  would  violate  the  plain- 
est principles  of  religion.  This  is  the  case  with  respect 
to  some  of  those  metaphors,  which  are  considered  most 
unexceptionable  ;  as  when  God  is  called  a  rock,  and 
when  he  is  said  to  walk,  or  ride,  or  sit.  In  all  such  in- 
stances, common  sense,  properly  enlightened  respecting 
the  nature  of  the  subject,  is  competent  at  once  to  deter- 
mine the  import  of  the  metaphorical  language.  If  a 
metaphor  is  taken  from  an  object  familiarly  known,  and 
is  used  with  any  degree  of  judgment,  or  taste  ;  we  per- 
ceive instantly  the  point  of  similitude  which  is  intended, 
and  the  meaning  of  the  metaphor  is  perfectly  obvious. 
We  say,  then,  that  the  texts  above  quoted,  do  not 
imply,  that  the  character  of  God  is  in  any  degree  like 
the  character  of  a  man,  who  is  impelled  by  his  angry, 
malignant  passions,  to  acts  of  violence.  They  do  not  im- 
ply that  any  thing  like  the  feeling  of  revenge  in  a 
man,  can  ever  belong  to  the  God  of  love.  The  analogy 
intended  is  between  the  effects  of  anger   and  revenge  in 


91 

man,  and  the  effects  of  what  is  called  anger  and  revenge 
in  God.  But  even  here,  careful  restriction  is  still  neces- 
sary. For  the  evils,  which  God  inflicts  upon  sinners, 
spring  from  motives  totally  different  from  human  anger 
and  revenge.  Nor  do  the  effects  of  the  divine  displeas- 
ure resemhle  the  effects  of  human  anger,  as  to  the  man* 
tier  in  which  they  take  place.  But  as  to  the  certainty 
and  dreadfulness  of  the  effects,  there  is  an  obvious  re- 
semblance. In  order  to  set  forth  how  fearful  and  how 
inevitable  is  the  punishment  of  the  wicked,  it  is  the  cus- 
tom of  the  inspired  writers  to  resort  to  the  most  terrific 
objects  in  nature.  To  illustrate  the  dreadfulness  of  the 
displeasure  of  God  against  sinners,  they  point  us  to  a 
man,  whose  anger  is  fierce,  and  consumes  all  before  it ; 
and,  to  make  the  illustration  still  more  impressive,  they 
point  us  to  a  raging  bear  bereaved  of  her  whelps.  So 
terrible  are  the  effects  of  the  divine  displeasure. 

If  we  have  taken  a  correct  view  of  the  metaphors 
above  cited,  we  are  prepared  to  understand  the  repre- 
sentations of  Scripture  on  the  other  part  of  the  subject. 
When  God  is  spoken  of  as  turning  or  being  turned  from 
the  fierceness  of  his  anger,  or  causing  his  anger  to  cease  ; 
the  sense  must  obviously  be,  that  the  dreadful  effects 
of  his  righteous  displeasure  are  prevented,  or  removed. 
A  man  whose  anger  abates,  and  whose  mind  becomes 
tranquil,  ceases  to  inflict  evil.  It  is  with  a  view  to  this, 
that,  when  the  effects  of  God's  holy  displeasure  are 
prevented,  or  removed,  he  is  said  to  turn  or  be  turn- 
ed from  his  anger ;  and,  if  those  effects  were  very 
dreadful,  from  the  fierceness  of  his  anger.  And  on  the 
same  ground,  if  any  being  in  heaven  or  earth,  should 
do  any  thing,  which,  according  to  the  principles  of 
the  divine  government,  would  have  an  influence  to  pre- 
vent or  remove  the  evils,  that   would   otherwise    result 


92 

from  the  displeasure  of  God  ;  that  being  might  be  said 
to  turn  God  from  his  anger,  or  render  him  merciful ;  and 
if  the  evils,  thus  prevented  or  removed,  were  great  and 
dreadful,  he  might,  by  a  still  bolder  figure,  be  said  to 
"  quench  the  wrath  of  God,  and  awaken  his  kindness  to- 
wards men." 

Now  as  this  kind  of  metaphor  is  so  abundantly  used 
in  the  Scripture,  why  may  it  not  be  used  by  those,  who 
make  the  Scripture  their  pattern  and  guide  ?  And  wrhen, 
in  conformity  to  their  perfect  pattern,  they  do  use  it, 
why  should  they  not  be  understood,  as  using  it  in  the 
same  manner  with  those  inspired  writers,  from  whom 
they  borrow  it  ?  Why  should  not  the  same  principles 
of  common  sense,  and  candor,  and  good  taste  be  applied 
to  the  interpretation  of  it  in  the  one  case,  as  in  the  other? 
If  this  were  done,  no  objection  could  remain  in  the  minds 
of  Unitarians,  certainly  not  in  the  mind  of  the  Author  of 
this  Sermon,  against  the  language  of  Orthodox  writers, 
respecting  the  influence  of  the  Atonement.  For  he 
says,  that  many  Unitarians,  clearly  meaning  to  include 
himself,  "think  that  the  Scriptures  ascribe  the  remission 
of  sins  to  Christ's  death,  with  an  emphasis  so  peculiar, 
that  we  ought  to  consider  this  event  as  having  a  special 
influence  in  removing  punishment,  as  a  condition  or  meth- 
od of  pardon,  without  which,  repentance  would  not  avail 
us,  at  least  to  that  extent  which  is  now  promised  by  the 
gospel."  I  am  glad  to  find  this  development  of  scriptu- 
ral views ;  although  there  is  a  sinking  phrase  at  the  close 
of  the  sentence,  which  the  Apostle  Paul  would  never 
have  written.  It  is  then  admitted  as  a  fact,  and  certain- 
ly it  must  be  regarded  as  a  fact  of  vast  moment,  "  that 
the  death  of  Christ  has  a  special  influence  in  removing 
punishment;"  that  it  is  an  indispensable  condition  of  par- 
don, and  the  only  consistent  method,  in  which  salvation  can 


93 

be  granted.  This  important  fact  is  described  by  Orthodox 
writers  in  various  ways.  It  is  the  representation  of  some, 
particularly  of  those,  whose  ardent  temperament,  or  vivid 
fancy,  makes  them  fond  of  glowing  imagery,  that  the 
death  of  Christ  quenched  his  Father's  wrath,  caused  him 
to  lay  aside  his  thunder,  and  to  look  upon  sinners  with  a 
smiling  face  ;  that  it  turned  a  throne  of  fiery  vengeance 
into  a  throne  of  mercy,  &c.  In  such  metaphorical  lan- 
guage as  this,  the  just  punishment  of  sin  is  likened  to 
the  effect  of  human  wrath,  of  thunder,  and  of  irresisti- 
ble power  in  a  king,  who  rises,  in  frowning  majesty,  to 
inflict  condign  punishment  upon  rebels;  and  the  lan- 
guage teaches,  that  the  punishment  of  sin,  illustrated  by 
such  images,  is  prevented  or  removed  by  the  mediation 
of  Christ.  The  language,  taken  literally,  would  impute 
a  character  to  God,  which  would  excite  universal  hor- 
ror. But  if  understood  according  to  the  legitimate  prin- 
ciples of  interpreting  metaphors,  it  teaches  the  simple, 
but  allimportant  truth,  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  the 
means  of  procuring  pardon,  or  the  medium,  through 
which  salvation  is  granted. 

Another  representation  which  is  frequently  made, 
and  which  is  borrowed  from  Scripture,  is,  that  Christ 
bought  us,  or  redeemed  us  from  destruction  by  the  price 
of  his  own  blood.  This  figure  is  drawn  from  the  prac- 
tice of  redeeming  captives  from  bondage,  by  paying  a 
price.  The  similitude,  when  exactly  expressed,  is  this ; 
as  captives  or  slaves  are  released  from  bondage  and  re- 
stored to  liberty,  by  the  payment  of  a  satisfactory  price  ; 
so  sinners  are  delivered  from  just  punishment,  and  made 
heirs  of  heaven,  by  the  atonement  of  Christ.  Some- 
times this  same  thing  is  spoken  of  by  Orthodox  writers, 
as  the  payment  of  a  debt.  This  figure  is  also  derived 
from  Scripture,  which    represents  us,  as  God's' debtors. 


94 

Matt,  vi.  12.  "  Forgive  us  our  debts.'*  Spiritual  con- 
cerns are  familiarly  represented  in  the  parables  of  Christ, 
by  what  takes  place  between  debtors  and  creditors.  As 
sinners  Ave  deserve  punishment ;  that  is,  we  owe  it  to 
the  righteous  Governor  of  the  world,  to  suffer  evil  in 
proportion  to  our  sins.  When  Christ  is  said  to  pay  our 
debt,  it  is  signified  simply,  that  by  means  of  his  suffer- 
ings, he  delivers  us  from  punishment.  This  similitude 
does  not  relate  particularly  to  the  mode  of  deliverance, 
nor  to  the  nature  of  the  evil  which  is  escaped,  nor  to 
the  nature  of  the  good  secured  ;  but  merely  to  the  fact  of 
his  procuring  deliverance  by  means  of  his  death.  As  the 
debtor,  who  has  nothing  to  pay,  and  is  confined  to  prison, 
is  freed  from  imprisonment  by  the  generosity  of  a  friend, 
who  steps  forward  in  his  name,  and  pays  his  debt  ;  so 
sinners  are  freed  from  punishment  by  the  kindness  of  the 
Savior,  who  interposed  and  shed  his  blood  for  them. 

It  is  said,  that  Christ  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of 
the  law,  by  being  made  a  curse  for  us.  The  law  denounc- 
ed a  punishment.  This  was  its  curse.  Christ  delivers  us 
from  that  punishment,  by  being  made  a  curse ;  that  is, 
by  suffering  an  evil,  which,  so  far  as  the  ends  of  the  di- 
vine government  are  concerned,  was  equivalent  to  the 
execution  of  the  curse  of  the  law  upon  transgressors. 

When  Christ  is  said  to  have  satisfied  divine  justice,  or 
the  demands  of  justice,  the  sense  is  the  same.  In  civil 
governments,  if  justice  is  satisfied  ;  in  other  words,  if 
that  is  done  which  perfectly  answers  the  ends  of  justice; 
there  is  no  further  necessity  of  punishment.  So,  when 
Christ  has  done  and  suffered  that  which  answers  the 
ends  of  justice  in  the  divine  government,  the  necessity  of 
punishment,  so  far  as  those  ends  are  concerned,  is  su» 
perseded.  And  if  any  of  us  should  say,  that  our  sin  was 
imputed  to  Christ,  our  meaning  must  be,  that  Christ  su£ 


95 

lered  on  account  of  our  sin, — suffered,  in  some  sense,  as 
he  would  have  suffered,  if  our  sin  had  been  imputed  to 
him  ;  though  a  real  imputation  of  our  sin  to  Christ,  in  a 
literal  sense,  would  have  been  a  palpable  inconsistency 
in  a  government  founded  in  justice  and  truth. 

I  might  mention  other  forms  of  figurative  language, 
which  have  been  employed  by  respectable  divines,  to  set 
forth  the  design  and  influence  of  Christ's  death;  and  might 
say  respecting  them  all,  that  if  they  were  interpreted 
according  to  the  same  principles,  which  govern  us  in  the 
interpretation  of  the  metaphorical  language  of  Scripture, 
a  very  satisfactory  sense  might  be  given  to  them,  so  that 
no  difficulty  would  remain.  I  would  therefore  appeal  to 
all  (hose,  who  have  duly  considered  the  nature  and  just 
interpretation  of  metaphors,  whether  it  is  a  mark  of  judg- 
ment, or  good  taste,  to  overlook  the  metaphorical  sense 
of  the  phraseology  now  under  consideration,  and  to  per- 
sist in  treating  it,  as  though  it  could  have  no  other  than 
a  literal  sense.  Against  the  literal  sense,  there  are  in- 
deed many  objections.  And  there  are  as  many  against 
the  literal  sense  of  the  texts  of  Scripture,  above  recited. 
But  against  that  metaphorical  sense,  which  I  have  sug- 
gested, there  are  no  objections  in  either  case. 

But  respecting  these  metaphors,  I  have  two  additional 
remarks.  The  first  is,  that  some  men,  who  profess  to 
hold  the  general  principles  of  Orthodoxy,  have  evidently 
been  led  into  error  bv  mixing  a  degree  of  the  literal  sense 
with  the  metaphorical.*  Though  they  seem  to  interpret 
the  phrases  referred  to,  as  figurative;  it  is  soon  made  ap- 
parent by  their  reasoning,  that  they  still  retain  some  im- 
pression of  the  literal  sense.  To  this  I  think  we  can 
trace  the  notion,  that,  if  Christ  has  made  a  perfect  atone- 
ment, and  satisfied  divine  justice,  those,  for  whom  he 
has  done  this,  are  no  longer  under  the  same  obligation 


to  obey  the  law,  and  punishing  them  for  their  sins  would 
no  longer  be  just.  This  would  indeed  follow  from 
understanding  some  of  the  representations  of  Scripture, 
and  of  Orthodox  writers,  in  a  literal  sense.  For  if  Christ 
paid  our  debt,  or  the  price  of  our  redemption  literally, 
i.  e.  just  as  a  friend  discharges  the  obligation  of  an  insol- 
vent debtor,  or  purchases  the  freedom  of  a  slave  by  the 
payment  of  money  ;  it  would  certainly  be  an  unrighteous 
thing  for  us  to  be  held  to  pay  our  own  debt,  or  to  suffer 
the  evils  of  servitude. 

To  the  same  cause  I  am  disposed  to  ascribe  it,  that  so 
many  men  have  thought  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement, 
or  of  salvation  through  the  blood  of  Christ,  unfavorable 
to  the  cause  of  morality.  If  the  atonement  be  literally 
and  exactly  like  the  payment  of  what  is  due  from  an  in- 
solvent debtor;  if  it  have  such  an  effect,  as  to  release 
the  sinner  from  his  obligation  to  render  obedience  to  the 
law, — such  an  effect  as  to  take  away  or  diminish  his  ill- 
desert,  or  to  make  it  less  just  in  God  to  punish  ;  the  doc- 
trine would  indeed  be  unfavorable  to  morality.  But  we 
deny  that  the  atonement  has  any  such  analogy,  as  is  here 
implied,  to  pecuniary  transactions  ;  and  we  deny  that  the 
metaphorical  language,  which  is  taken  from  those  trans- 
actions to  illustrate  the  subject,  indicates  any  such  anal- 
ogy. The  atonement,  as  a  means,  and  we  believe  the 
only  consistent  means,  does  indeed  deliver  sinners  from 
punishment.  But  its  influence  is  such,  and  operates  in 
such  a  way,  that  the  righteous  authority  of  the  law  is 
confirmed,  and  that  the  undiminished  obligations  of  sin- 
ners to  obedience,  their  ill-desert,  and  the  justice  of 
their  punishment  are  all  set  in  the  clearest  light. 

Another  hurtful  notion,  which  seems  to  spring 
from  the  same  source,  that  is,  from  attaching  some- 
thing of  a  literal  sense  to  figurative  language,  is,  that 


97 

God's  requiring  perfect  satisfaction  to  his  justice  in  order 
to  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  or  his  determination  not  to  save 
sinners,  unless  their  debt  is  fully  discharged  by  another, 
shows  less  benevolence,  than  if  he  should  forgive  and 
save  by  his  own  unpurchased  goodness,  without  any  sat- 
isfaction rendered  by  another.  This  notion  often  lurks 
in  the  minds  of  those  who  believe  the  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment,  but  whose  faith  is  mixed  with  obscurity  of  knowl- 
edge, and  easily  perplexed  with  difficulties.  By  those 
who  reject  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  the  same  thing  is 
urged,  as  an  objection  against  it.  They  contend,  that 
the  doctrine  represents  God  to  be  mercenary,  selfish,  in- 
exorable ;  and  so  makes  his  character  much  less  amiable, 
than  if  he  should  forgive  his  disobedient  but  penitent  chil- 
dren, by  free  mercy,without  requiring  any  satisfaction  from 
another.  "  How  plain  is  it,  according  to  this  doctrine," 
says  the  Author  of  the  Sermon  before  us,  "  that  God, 
instead  of  being  plenteous  in  forgiveness,  never  for- 
gives ;  for  it  is  absurd  to  speak  of  men  as  forgiven,  when 
their  whole  punishment  is  borne  by  a  substitute."  Uni- 
tarians have  often  made  the  same  allegation  against  our 
doctrine.  Now  this  would  be  a  real  difficulty,  and 
might  be  urged  conclusively  against  the  doctrine,  if 
the  language,  employed  in  describing  the  atonement, 
were  to  be  taken  literally.  For  surely  a  rich  credi- 
tor, who  imprisons  a  poor  insolvent  debtor,  and  refus- 
es to  release  him,  till  every  farthing  is  paid  by  him  or 
by  his  surety,  shows  much  less  kindness  and  generos- 
ity, than  if  he  should  give  up  the  debt  and  release  the 
poor  debtor  freely.  And  a  father,  who  deals  out  to  an 
offending  child  the  full  measure  of  justice,  and  withholds 
every  token  of  paternal  kindness,  till  he  receives  the  most 
perfect  satisfaction,  exhibits  a  much  less  amiable  charac- 
ter, than  if,  from  the  ardent  love  of  his  heart,  he  should 

13 


98 

be  inclined  to  hail  the  first  opportunity  of  showing  favor 
to  his  child;  to  meet  him,  while  yet  a  great  way  off,  and, 
on  seeing  marks  of  penitence,  to  embrace  him,  to  cover 
his  faults,  and  load  him  with  kindness.  But  here  the 
analogy  fails.  For  God's  refusing  to  forgive  without  sat- 
isfaction, is  an  exercise  of  his  infinite  goodness,  as  the 
guardian  of  his  kingdom.  His  requiring  full  satisfaction  to 
his  justice,  or  a  full  atonement  for  sin,  and  his  appointing 
that  such  an  atonement  should  be  made,  resulted  whol- 
ly from  benevolence.  "  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he 
gave  his  only  begotten  Son."  It  shows  higher  love  for 
God  to  save  in  this  way,  than  if  he  should  save  without 
an  atonement,  by  an  act  of  unpurchased  mercy  *,  which 
is  only  saying,  that  it  shows  greater  benevolence  in  God, 
as  moral  governor,  to  save  sinners  in  a  way,  which  will 
vindicate  the  honors  of  his  violated  law,  and  secure  from 
injury  the  interests  of  his  kingdom,  than  in  a  way, 
which  would  expose  his  law  to  contempt,  and  the  inter- 
ests of  his  kingdom  to  injury.  And  this  view  of  the 
subject,  I  think,  must  be  obvious  to  every  enlightened 
christian,  who  is  disentangled  from  the  literal  sense  of 
metaphorical  language,  and  who  attends  to  the  whole  ac- 
count, which  the  Bible  gives,  of  the  love  which  God  has 
exercised,  and  the  measures  he  has  pursued,  in  the  sal- 
vation of  men. 

It  would  lead  me  beyond  my  intention,  to  point  out 
all  those  errors,  which  may  be  traced  to  the  habit  of 
giving  something  of  a  literal  sense  to  the  metaphorical 
language  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  of  other  writings, 
on  the  subject  of  the  atonement.  Having  suggested  in- 
stances of  this,  sufficient  to  excite  proper  attention  to  the 
subject,  I  shall  proceed  to  my  second  remark;  namely; 
when  there  is  an  evident  tendency  in  the  minds  of  men  to 
understand  any  part  of  the  metaphorical   language,  which 


99 

has  commonly  been  used  respecting  ike  atonement,  in  a  tite* 
ral  sense,  and  when  ice  perceive  that  this  occasions  hurt- 
ful misapprehensions  ;  it  is  the  dictate  of  christian  wisdom, 
to  be  sparing  in  the  use  of  such  language,  and,  ivhen  used, 
to  guard  it  with  some  special  care  against  its  liability  t.o  be 
understood  literally.  This  caution  I  think  should  be  ap- 
plied to  the  language,  which  illustrates  the  atonement 
by  pecuniary  transactions,  as  the  payment  of  a  debt, 
which  a  poor  man  owes  ;  cancelling  his  obligations ;  or 
purchasing  his  release  from  imprisonment.  Nor  should 
I  think  it  the  part  of  wisdom,  at  this  day,  and  on  this 
subject,  to  make  a  very  copious  use  even  of  those  Scrip- 
ture metaphors,  which  represent  God  as  having  the  pas- 
sion of  anger,  or  wrath,  and  the  atonement  as  the  means  of 
quenching  it,  or  turning  him  from  it.  An  abundance  of 
this  species  of  metaphor  is  not  expedient,  because  it  is  not 
so  consentaneous  to  the  genius  of  our  language,  as  to  that  of 
the  Hebrew  ;  and  especially,  because  the  endless  contro- 
versies, and  extravagant  fancies,  which  have  prevailed  in 
the  world,  have  perplexed  the  minds  of  men,  and  ex- 
posed them  to  erroneous  impressions  on  this  subject. 
The  object  of  language  is  to  communicate  useful  truths 
to  others.  If  it  comes  to  be  the  case  with  any  particu- 
lar words  or  phrases,  that  they  do  not  in  fact  communi- 
cate such  truths,  though  the  words  or  phrases  may  be 
proper  in  themselves,  and  even  though  they  may  be  au- 
thorised by  Scripture  ;  it  becomes  expedient  to  explain 
them  clearly,  or  to  adopt  new  ones. 

Socmian  writers  seem  to  suppose,  that  we  overlook 
those  numerous  texts,  which,  without  any  reference  to 
the  death  of  Christ,  declare  the  free  mercy  of  God  to- 
wards penitent  sinners,  Here  I  think  it  easy,  by  a  few 
connected  remarks,  to  remove  all  misapprehension,  and 
to  present  the  subject  in  a  light  which  cannot  fail  to  be 
satisfactory. 


100 

The  doctrine  now  before  us,  divides  itself  into  two 
parts  ;   first,,  the  simple  fact,   that  God  is  merciful,  and 
will  forgive  penitent  sinners  ;  second,  the   particular  way 
or  method  of  forgiveness.     These   two  things  are   per- 
fectly distinct  in  their  nature,  and  may,  if  God  pleases, 
be  subjects  of  distinct  revelations.     He  may,  if  he  sees 
it  to  be  best,  reveal  to  mankind,  at  one  period  of  time, 
or  in  one  part  of   his  word,  the  simple  fact  of  his  mercy, 
or  his  readiness  to  forgive  the   penitent,  without  giving 
at  that  time,  or  in  that  part  of  Scripture,  the  least  inti- 
mation of  any  medium,  through  which    his  mercy  flows. 
And  it  is  clear,  that    the  knowledge  of  this  simple  J  act, 
without  any  other  information,  would  be  of  vast  impor- 
tance.    Now  this  simple  fact,  so  important  to  guiltv  men, 
is  made  known  in  a  great  multitude  of  texts,  both  in  the 
Old  Testament  and  the  New,  where  nothing  is  said  of 
the  method,  in  which   mercy  is  exercised.     If  this  had 
been  the  case  universally,  and  God  had  nowhere  reveal- 
ed any  thing,  but  simply  that  he  would  forgive  the  pen- 
ftent ;  our  faith  must  have  been  confined  to  that  simple 
truth.     As  to  the  way,  or  method,  in  which  the  divine 
forgiveness  would  be  exercised,  we  should  know  nothing, 
except  that  it  must  be  a  way  consistent   with    the  per- 
fections of  God,  and  the  safety  of  his  moral  government. 
I  grant,  that   our  faith,  even   if  thus   limited,  might  be 
a  powerful  principle  of  action,  and  an  inexhaustible  source 
of  comfort.     And  in  such  a  case,  it  would  certainly  be 
our  duty  to  check  the  impatience  of  a  prying  curiosity, 
and  to  wait  quietly,  till  God  should  see  fit  to  give  more 
light.     But  he  has  given  more  light.     He  has  taught  us, 
by  a  revelation,  additional  to  what  I  have  just  supposed, 
that  his  mercy,  which  is  so  often  declared  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, is  exercised  towards  penitent   sinners,  through  the 
blood  of  Christ  ;  that  forgiveness  comes  in  this  way,  and 


101 

in  no  other.     Thus  our   faith   is  extended,  just  in   pro- 
portion to  the  greater  extent  of  the  revelation. 

With  regard  to  this  last  point,  it  is  the  opinion  of 
some  writers,  who  admit  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement, 
that  nothing  is  revealed,  but  the  single  truth,  that  for- 
giveness comes  through  the  mediation  of  Christ  ;  and 
that  we  are  wholly  incapable  of  knowing  what  particu- 
lar bearing  the  death  of  Christ  has  upon  the  moral  gov- 
ernment of  God,  or  how  it  secures  mercy  to  penitent  sin- 
ners. But  careful  attention  to  a  few  texts  of  Scripture 
must,  I  think,  lead  to  a  different  conclusion.  I  shall 
name  only  two.  Gal.  iii.  13.  "  Christ  hath  redeemed 
us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for 
us."  The  text,  and  what  immediately  precedes  it,  clear- 
ly teach,  that  men,  as  transgressors,  are  under  the 
curse  of  the  law,  which  they  have  transgressed  ;  that 
Christ  delivered  them  from  that  curse,  that  is,  from  the 
evil,  which  the  law  denounced  against  them  for  sin  ;  and 
that  he  did  it,  by  being  made  a  curse  for  them.  A  literal 
and  exact  substitution  was  impossible.  But  the  Apostle's 
language  must  signify,  that  the  curse,  which  Christ  was 
made,  or  the  evil  he  endured,  had  respect  to  the  same  law, 
from  whose  curse  sinners  were  redeemed.  It  had  re- 
spect to  the  same  law  ;  not  that  it  was  literally  and  ex- 
actly the  penalty  of  the  law,  or  the  punishment  which  the 
law  threatened  against  sinners ;  but  it  had  such  a  re- 
lation to  the  law,  and  such  an  influence  upon  it,  that  sin- 
ners, on  account  of  it,  might  be  consistently  released  from 
its  curse  ;  whereas,  had  not  Christ  been  made  a  curse  for 
them,  that  is,  suffered  and  died  for  them,  they  them- 
selves must  have  endured  the  curse.  Thus,  although 
the  curse  of  the  law,  falling  on  Christ,  is,  in  various  re- 
spects, different  from  what  it  would  be,  if  it  should  fall 
upon  sinners  ;  yet,  in  relation  to  the  ends  of  the  law,  or 


102 

of  the  divine  administration,  it  is  substantially  the  same- 
Arid  as  those  benevolent  ends  are  secured,  by  the  curse 
falling  upon  Christ ;  it  becomes  consistent  with  the  or- 
der of  God's  kingdom,  for  penitent  sinners  to  be  deliver- 
ed from  the  curse. 

The  other  passage  I  shall  quote  is  Rom.  iii.  24,  25, 
26.  "  Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace,  through  the  re- 
demption that  is  in  Jesus  Christ :  Whom  God  hath  set 
forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood,  to 
declare  his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins  that 
are  past,  through  the  forbearance  of  God;  To  declare, 
/  say,  at  this  time  his  righteousness  ;  that  he  might  be 
just,  and  the  justifier  of  him  which  believeth  in  Jesus." 
Here  the  immediate  object  of  Christ's  being  set  forth 
is  represented  to  be,  to  declare,  or  make  known  the  right- 
eousness of  God.  Notwithstanding  the  authority  of 
Schleusner  and  Rosenmuller,  I  am  clearly  of  opinion, 
with  most  Commentators  and  Divines,  that  SixcuoGvvyj, 
in  this  place,  has  its  primary  and  common  sense,  and  sig- 
nifies that  attribute  of  God,  which  leads  him,  as  moral 
Governor  of  the  world,  to  render  to  every  man  accord- 
ing to  his  deeds,  and  of  course  to  inflict  the  curse  of  the 
law  on  sinners.  The  object  of  the  death  of  Christ  is 
then,  to  declare,  or  manifest,  that  God  is  righteous,  and 
that  in  the  salvation  of  sinners  he  will  support  the  hon- 
ors of  his  law,  and  "  the  interests  of  virtue." 

In  contemplating  this  subject^  I  ask  myself,  what 
hinderance  there  is  in  the  way  of  God's  showing  the  same 
favor  to  transgressors,  as  to  the  obedient.  The  answer 
is  obvious.  His  law,  and  his  character,  as  Lawgiver,  for- 
bid it,  and  the  interests  of  his  moral  kingdom  forbid  it. 
If,  in  the  common  course  of  his  administration,  he  should 
show  the  same  favor  to  transgressors,  as  to  the  obedient, 
he  would  set  aside  the  authority  of  his  law,  and  leave  no 


103 

visible  distinction  between  virtue  and  vice.  Any  ruler, 
who  should  proceed  in  this  way,  would  soon  bring  to  an 
end  the  order  and  happiness  of  his  subjects.  The  ex- 
pedient, which  the  wisdom  of  God  has  adopted,  prevents 
this  consequence  of  extending  favor  to  transgressors. 
The  cross  of  Christ  makes  known  the  righteousness  or 
justice  of  God,  as  moral  Governor.  It  shows  that  he 
does  make,  and  will  forever  make  a  distinction  between 
holiness  and  sin.  It  has  such  an  influence  upon  his  mor- 
al administration,  that  he  can  be  just,  and  the  justifier 
of  him  that  believeth ;  that  is,  can  forgive  sin  without 
degrading  the  majesty,  or  surrendering  the  claims  of  jus- 
tice. To  express  the  same  in  other  words  ;  the  influ- 
ence of  the  atonement  is  such,  that  it  has  become  con- 
sistent with  justice  to  do,  what  would  otherwise  have  been 
totally  inconsistent.  It  is  in  this  way  I  come  to  a  simi- 
lar conclusion  with  the  author  of  the  Sermon  ;  namely  ; 
that  Christ's  death,  "  has  an  inseparable  connexion  with 
forgiveness,  that  it  has  a  special  influence  in  removing 
punishment,  as  a  condition  or  method  of  pardon,  with- 
out which  repentance  would  not  avail  us." 

Correspondent  with  this  is  the  practical  view  which 
devout  Christians  generally  take  of  this  subject.  When 
they  behold  Jesus,  who  was  holy,  harmless,  and  undelil- 
ed,  suffering  and  dying  for  sinners,  they  see  the  honors 
of  God's  righteousness  vindicated,  and  the  principles  of 
his  moral  government  established.  They  consider  what 
ends  are  accomplished  in  the  divine  administration  by 
the  just  punishment  of  transgressors.  All  these  ends 
they  see  accomplished,  in  the  highest  degree,  by  the 
death  of  Christ.  And  thus  it  becomes  clear,  that  God 
can  forbear  to  punish  penitent  transgressors,  on  account 
of  Christ's  death,  without  any  injury  to  his  moral  gov- 
ernment, or  any  sacrifice  of  the  interests  of  virtue. 


104 

Against  our  scheme,  Unitarians  urge  one  particular 
objection,  which  may  deserve  a  few  moments'  special  no- 
tice. The  objection  in  short  is,  that  the  Trinitarian 
scheme  lowers  down  the  value  of  Christ's  sacrifice,  and 
"  robs  his  death  of  interest."  The  alleged  ground  of 
this  objection  is,  that  we  believe  Christ  to  be  God  and 
man,  united  in  one  person,  and  that,  as  divinity  could  not 
be  the  subject  of  pain,  the  sufferer  must  have  been  mere- 
ly a  man. 

This  objection  entirely  overlooks  an  important  ar- 
ticle in  our  system.  We  believe,  that  all  the  divine  and 
human  perfections,  which  the  Scriptures  ascribe  to 
Christ,  constitute  but  one  person  ;  and  consequently  that 
all  his  actions  and  sufferings  belong  to  him,  as  one  per- 
son;  much  as  all  the  actions  and  sufferings  of  any  man, 
whether  mental  or  corporeal,  belong  to  him,  as  one  man. 
It  results  from  this  view  of  the  subject,  that  the  value 
or  significancy  of  any  action  or  suffering  in  Chr:st  must 
be  according  to  the  dignity  or  excellence  of  his  whole 
character.  Whether  the  action  or  suffering  takes  place 
particularly  in  one  part  or  another  of  his  complex  per- 
son, it  is  attributable  to  his  whole  person  ;  and  it  derives 
its  peculiar  character  from  the  character  of  his  whole  per- 
son, constituted  as  it  is.  The  suffering  of  Christ  was  there- 
fore of  as  high  importance  or  value,  in  making  an  atone- 
ment, as  if  it  could  have  been,  and  in  reality  had  been,  in  the 
most  proper  sense,  the  suffering  of  the  Divinity.  So  that 
whatever  may  be  the  conceptions  of  Arians  or  Socini- 
ans,  as  we  view  the  subject,  the  fact  that  Christ  endured 
suffering  in  his  human  nature,  and  not  directly  in  his  di- 
vine, occasions  no  difficulty  as  to  the  preciousness,  which 
we  ascribe  to  his  atonement.  And  I  think  the  views  of 
the  Orthodox  in  this  case  are  capable  of  being  defended 
m  the  most  satisfactory  manner. 


105 

The  rejection  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  with 
which  some,  who  call  themselves  Christians,  are  charge- 
ahle,  is  not  to  be  regarded  merely  as  a  speculative  error. 
It  plainly  indicates  the  disposition  of  the  heart.  For, 
after  God  has  sent  his  Son  to  be  a  propitiation,  and  has 
told  us,  that  we  must  rely  upon  his  atoning  blood,  as  the 
sole  ground  of  forgiveness  ;  if  we  disregard  that  provis- 
ion, and  hope  for  heaven  on  the  footing  of  our  own  vir- 
tue or  good  works,  we  give  proof  of  a  temper  of  mind, 
which  is  in  total  contrariety  to  the  humble  spirit  of 
christian  faith.  We  signify  that  we  think  ourselves  en- 
titled to  future  happiness,  on  our  own  account,  and  that 
we  have  no  need  of  the  merit  or  intercession  of  another 
to  recommend  us  to  the  favor  of  God.  Some  Socinians 
boldly  use  language  like  this.  They  have  the  audacity 
to  bring  forward  a  personal  claim  upon  the  favor  of  God. 
The  same  spirit  appears  in  all,  who  rest  their  hopes  of 
heaven  on  their  own  goodness.  Although  God  has  provided 
a  perfect  righteousness,  as  the  foundation  of  their  hope; 
and  has  taught  them,  that  the  salvation  of  sinners  depends 
wholly  on  Christ  crucified,  and  that  no  works  of  right- 
eousness, which  they  have  done,  and  no  accomplishments 
or  dispositions,  which  they  possess,  must  ever  be  named 
in  his  presence  ;  they  still  persist  in  spurning  this  pro- 
vision of  infinite  mercy ;  in  counting  as  foolishness,  the 
grand  plea,  with  which  a  Savior's  death  has  furnished 
them,  and  in  obtruding  their  own  virtue  upon  his  notice, 
as  a  better  reason  for  their  acceptance,  than  all  the 
worthiness  and  all  the  grace  of  Christ  crucified. 

Thus  far  1  have  thought  it  necessary  to  proceed  in 
order  to  remove  misapprehensions,  and  to  give  a  just, 
though  brief  view  of  the  real  sentiments  wre  entertain 
on  this  momentous  subject.  It  has,  I  trust,  been  made 
evident  that  our  scheme  of  faith  is  far  from  sullying  the 
14 


106 

glory  of  GocFs  moral  perfections,  or  impugning  the  princi- 
ples of  either  justice  or  benevolence.  On  the  contrary,  it 
has  for  its  foundation  the  immutable  perfection  of  God's 
moral  character,  and  the  inviolable  principles  of  his 
righteous  government.  And  it  is,  if  we  know  our  own 
hearts,  the  strong  attachment  we  feel  to  his  glorLous 
character  and  government,  and  our  earnest  desire,  that 
they  may  have  the  honor  of  a  perfect  and  eternal  vin- 
dication, which  creates  in  us  such  an  interest  in  the  doc- 
trine of  the  atonement. 


LETTER  IX. 

My  respected  friends, 

The  design  I  wish  to  execute  in  these  letters,  re- 
quires me  particularly  to  bring  into  view  one  more  doc- 
trine of  the  Orthodox,  namely,  the  doctrine  of  divine  in- 
fluence. To  those,  who  entertain  the  same  views  with 
us  of  the  character  of  man,  and  the  nature  and  necessity 
of  holiness,  this  doctrine  must  appear  of  the  highest 
worth.  But  here,  as  in  former  cases,  instead  of  giving 
a  regular  treatise  on  the  subject,  it  is  my  intention  to 
correct  mistakes,  to  expose  the  weakness  of  objections. 
to  solve  difficulties,  and  to  do  all  I  can  to  induce  those, 
who  have  rejected,  or  half  believed  this  doctrine,  to  in- 
quire with  a  candid,  unprejudiced  mind,  into  its  truth  and 
importance. 

It  has  been  the  general  representation  of  Unitarians, 
that  we  believe  there  is  an  invincible,  overpowering,  ir- 
resistible influence  of  the  divine  spirit  on  the  minds  of 
men,  which  is  totally   repugnant  to  their  moral  agency 


107 

^rid  accountability,  and  which  makes  them  entirely  pas- 
sive,— mere  machines. 

In  order  that  jou  may  be  under  advantages  to  judge, 
whether  this  representation  is  just ;  I  shall  here  offer 
you  a  brief  statement  of  our  doctrine,  with  the  leading- 
topics  of  argument,  which  we  urge  in  its  support,  and 
the  explanations  we  are  accustomed  to  give  it  in  relation 
to  other  obvious  truths. 

Our  doctrine  of  divine  influence  results,  as  Ave  con- 
ceive, from  the  nature  and  condition  of  created  beings, 
who  are  and  must  be  dependent  on  their  Creator  and 
Preserver.  This  necessary  dependence  of  an  intelligent 
creature,  relates  to  the  acts  of  the  mind,  as  well  as  to 
outward  circumstances.  But  we  infer  the  doctrine  more 
directly  from  the  fact,  that  men  are  universally  sinners ; 
that  their  moral  nature  is  the  subject  of  a  most  woful 
disorder.  We  think  it  the  dictate  of  sound  experience, 
that  men  will  not  in  fact  cast  off  the  dominion  of  their 
corrupt  affections,  and  render  to  God  the  homage  of  a 
sincere  obedience,  without  special  divine  aid. 

But  the  argument,  on  which  we  rest  without  any  wa- 
vering, is  the  testimony  of  the  sure  word  of  God.  I  need 
not  give  the  proof  in  detail.  They  who  attentively  pe- 
ruse the  Scriptures,  will  not  fail  to  perceive,  that  this 
doctrine  is  there  taught  with  great  clearness,  and  in  a 
great  variety  of  forms.  If  God,  by  his  spirit,  produces 
no  good  affections  in  our  hearts ;  if  he  vouchsafes  no 
spiritual  illumination  ;  if  he  does  nothing  to  cleanse  us 
from  sin,  and  form  us  to  holiness  ;  what  can  be  the  im- 
port of  those  texts,  which  teach,  that  God  works  in  his 
people  both  to  will  and  to  do;  that  he  creates  in  them  a 
new  heart  &  a  new  spirit ;  that  he  opens  their  eyes,  draws 
them,  turns,  renews, strengthens  them,  and  helps  their  h> 
firmities  ?     And  what  can   be  the   meaning  of  the  Ian- 


103 

guage,  which  christians  universally  use  in  prayer,  when 
they  ask  God  to  subdue  their  sins,  to  purify  their  hearts, 
and  to  work  in  them  all  the  good  pleasure  of  his  good- 
ness; and  when  they  ascribe  to  God  all  the  good  they 
possess  ?  We  understand  the  language  of  Scripture  on 
this  subject  in  its  most  obvious  sense  ;  and  on  this  obvi- 
ous sense  we  found  our  belief,  that  all  virtue  or  holiness 
in  man  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  influence  of  the  divine 
spirit,  and  that  without  the  effectual  agency  of  the  Spir- 
it, man  would  have  no  holy  affections,  and  perform  no 
acts  of  holy  obedience.  This  is  a  general  statement  of 
the  orthodox  doctrine. 

But  we  do  not  stop  here.  The  doctrine  has  rela- 
tions to  other  subjects, — relations  which  are  of  great 
moment.  We  are  sensible  we  cannot  do  justice  to  the 
doctrine,  without  attending  to  those  relations,  and  giving 
the  consideration  of  them  a  proper  influence  in  regulat- 
ing our  conceptions  of  the  doctrine. 

This  doctrine  has  a  relation,  first,  to  the  attributes 
of  God.  In  view  of  this  relation,  we  say,  the  influence, 
which  God  exerts  in  or  upon  his  creatures,  is  such  as 
agrees  with  his  infinite  perfections, — such  as  results  from 
them,  and  is  suited  to  make  a  just  exhibition  of  them. 
It  is  prompted  by  divine  benevolence,  as  the  influence  is 
to  accomplish  a  good  end.  It  is  regulated  by  divine 
wisdom,  which  renders  it  perfectly  suited  to  accomplish 
that  end.  Secondly,  the  doctrine  of  divine  influence  has 
an  immediate  relation  to  the  human  mind.  In  view  of 
this  relation,  we  say,  that  the  divine  influence  is  adapted 
to  the  nature  of  the  mind  ;  that  the  Holy  Spirit  operates 
in  such  a  manner,  as  to  offer  no  violence  to  any  of  the 
principles  of  an  intelligent  and  moral  nature  ;  that  it  al- 
ways produces  its  effects  in  the  understanding,  according 
to  the  essential   properties   and   laws,  which   belong  to 


109 

the  understanding,  and  in  the  will  and  affections,  with- 
out interfering  with  any  of  the  properties  and  laws, 
which  belong  to  them.  We  consider  this  peculiar  agen- 
cy of  the  divine  Spirit  in  producing  and  continuing  ho- 
liness in  men  to  be  just  as  consistent  with  every  thing, 
which  belongs  to  an  intelligent  and  moral  nature,  as  the 
general  agency  of  God  in  preserving  and  governing  his 
rational  creatures.  Nor  do  we  apprehend,  that  there  is 
any  thing  more  incompatible  with  the  nature,  and  prop- 
erties of  the  mind,  in  the  influence,  which  God  exerts 
upon  it,  than  in  the  influence  which  we  exert  upon  it. 
It  is  a  matter  of  fact,  that  we  have  an  influence,  often  a 
controlling  influence,  over  the  understanding  and  will  of 
our  fellow  creatures.  The  influence  which  others  have 
upon  us,  be  it  ever  so  great  and  effectual,  may  operate, 
as  we  certainly  know,  in  a  way  perfectly  correspondent 
with  our  moral  nature.  We  are  so  constituted,  that  we 
may  be  influenced  by  others  to  do  good,  in  consistency 
with  our  own  freedom,  and  virtue,  and  praiseworthiness  ; 
that  is,  we  are  none  the  less  voluntary  in  doing  good, 
and  none  the  less  deserving  of  approbation,  because  we 
are  induced  to  do  it  by  the  rational,  moral  influence, 
which  others  exert  upon  our  minds.  I  pretend  not  that 
the  two  cases  are  exactly  parallel.  But  it  is  natural  to 
suppose,  that  the  divine  influence  is,  at  least,  as  consist- 
ent with  our  free  agency  and  accountableness,  as  any 
human  influence  can  be.  For  surely  God,  who  made  us, 
can  have  access  to  our  understanding  and  heart,  and 
produce  any  effects  there,  which  he  pleases  ;  and  sure- 
ly he  must  know  how  to  do  this,  without  infringing  any 
of  the  principles  of  our  intelligent  or  moral  nature.  This, 
in  our  view,  cannot  be  denied,  without  implicitly  denying 
the  dependence  of  moral  beings  on  God,  and  taking  away 
bis  power  to  control  their  actions,  and  to  execute  the  plan 


110 

of  his  own  government.  For  if  any  man  maintains  that 
the  special  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  incom- 
patible with  the  moral  freedom  of  man ;  how  can  he 
consistently  maintain  that  agency  of  God  in  his  provi- 
dence, which  is  denied  by  none,  but  Atheists  ?  And  who 
that  admits  the  Bible  to  contain  truth  unmixed  with  er- 
ror, can  doubt  the  constant  agency  of  God  in  every  part 
of  the  creation,  and  especially  in  the  souls  of  his  redeem- 
ed people  ? 

It  is  in  the  manner  above  mentioned,  that  we  explain 
the  doctrine  of  divine  influence.  It  has  been  explained  sub- 
stantially in  this  manner,  from  time  immemorial.  These 
relations  of  the  subject  to  the  moral  government  of  God, 
and  to  the  moral  agency  of  man,  and  the  qualifications 
which  necessarily  arise  from  them,  have  been  insisted 
upon  with  no  ordinary  zeal,  by  the  Orthodox  Divines  in 
New  England.  We  assert  neither  the  special  agency 
of  God  in  the  kingdom  of  his  grace,  nor  the  common 
agency  of  God  in  his  providence,  without  asserting  or 
implying  that  the  agency  is  such,  as  secures  to  man  the 
unimpaired  exercise  of  all  his  rational  and  moral  powers, 
— such  as  preserves  his  moral  freedom  entire.  We  treat 
the  whole  subject  in  such  a  way,  as  evinces  to  every  man 
of  reflection,  that  we  understand  it  with  these  qualifica- 
tions. We  speak  of  man,  as  being  in  the  highest  sense 
active  in  repenting,  believing,  and  obeying.  We  repre- 
sent repentance,  and  obedience,  as  his  duty,  and  labor  to 
persuade  him  to  perform  them.  We  urge  motives  to 
influence  him,  as  a  moral  agent ;  we  present  to  him  the 
rewards  of  obedience,  and  the  punishment  of  disobedi- 
ence;  we  exhort  and  reprove  him,  and  in  all  respects 
treat  him  in  such  a  manner,  as  shows,  that  we  believe 
the  doctrine  of  man's  moral  agency,  as  firmly,  as  we  be- 
lieve that  of  the  divine  influence. 


Ill 

It*  our  opponents  can  prove,  that  our  views  of  the  di- 
vine influence  certainly  lead  to  the  denial  of  man's  free- 
dom and  accountableness,  as  a  moral  agent,  they  may 
justly  charge  us  with  holding  principles,  from  which  such 
consequences  do  in  fact  follow  ;  though  they  cannot 
charge  us  with  holding  those  consequences. — But  why 
should  our  views  be  considered  as  involving  such  conse- 
quences  ?  Is  it  because  we  assert  the  divine  influence 
to  he  powerful  and  effectual}  But  how  does  it  appear, 
that  an  influence  upon  the  mind,  which  is  perfectly  suit- 
ed to  its  nature,  and  its  faculties,  has  any  more  tenden- 
cy to  make  man  a  machine,  or  to  destroy  his  agency, 
when  it  is  powerful  enough  effectually  to  accomplish  its 
design,  than  when  it  fails  of  accomplishing  it  ?  Is  it  so 
with  us?  When  we  exert  a  powerful  and  effectual  in- 
fluence over  a  person,  persuading  him  to  relinquish  some 
sinful  indulgence,  to  which  he  was  addicted,  or  to  per- 
form some  virtuous  action,  to  which  he  had  a  strong  re- 
luctance ;  do  we,  on  that  account,  look  upon  him,  as  any 
the  less  a  free  moral  agent  ?  Do  we  regard  that  deter- 
ruination  of  his  mind,  and  that  conduct,  to  which  we  per- 
suaded bim,  as  having  no  virtue,  because  he  was  led  to 
it  by  our  persuasive  influence  ?  Even  if  he  should  tell 
us,  what  is  often  a  matter  of  fact,  that  the  influence  of 
our  arguments  was  overpowering,  and  irresistible  ;  we 
should  consider  this  as  a  proof,  not  of  the  loss  of  his  free 
agency,  but  of  the  strength  of  our  arguments ;  and  we 
should  regard  his  ready  submission  to  such  arguments, 
as  evidence  of  a  sound  understanding,  and  of  a  commen- 
dable disposition. 

The  mode,  in  which  we  exert  our  influence,  is  indeed 
widely  different  from  that,  in  which  the  divine  in- 
fluence is  exerted.  But  the  consideration  of  this  dif- 
ference will  furnish  a  new  argument  in  favor  of  our  doc- 


il2 

trine.  For  surely  he  who  made  intelligent  creatures, 
and  who  unerringly  knows  the  powers  and  properties  of 
the  mind  he  gave  them,  and  all  its  laws  of  action,  must 
be  able  to  adapt  his  influence  to  the  nature  of  their  mind 
more  perfectly,  than  we  can.  These  brief  remarks  are 
sufficient  to  show,  how  utterly  they  misconceive  the 
subject,  who  think,  as  many  seem  to  do,  that  the  agency 
of  God  can  extend  only  so  far,  can  rise  only  to  such  a  de- 
gree of  efficacy,  without  interfering  with  the  agency  of 
man.  The  fact  is,  that  the  highest  point  of  energy,  to 
which  the  divine  agency,  thus  exerted,  can  rise,  interferes 
not  in  the  least  with  the  proper  exercise  of  our  rational 
and  moral  powers.  The  whole  design  and  tendency  of 
the  influence,  which  the  Holy  Spirit,  exerts  over  us,  is  to 
unshackle  the  mind  from  corrupt  passion  and  prejudice, 
and,  instead  of  encumbering  and  destroying  moral  agency, 
to  conform  its  free  exercises  to  the  rules  of  virtue,  and 
so  to  improve  and  elevate  all  the  moral  faculties. 

1  ask  again  ;  is  it  supposed  that  the  divine  influence, 
which  we  assert,  is  incompatible  with  moral  agency,  be- 
cause God  exerts  it  upon  us  in  a  way  so  different  from 
that,  in  which  we  exert  our  influence  ;  that  is,  without 
the  use  of  language,  or  any  outward  signs  ;  or  because 
we  do  not  perceive  its  operation  upon  us,  as  distinct  from 
the  acts  of  our  own  minds?  To  this  I  would  reply; 
that  the  invisibleness  of  the  divine  influence  no  more 
proves  that  it  is  not  real  and  efficacious,  than  the  invis- 
ibleness of  the  Creator,  or  the  act  of  creative  power, 
proves  that  the  Creator  does  not  exist,  or  that  his  crea- 
tive power  was  never  exerted.  Could  we  stand,  as  spec- 
tators, to  witness  the  creation  of  a  world  ;  we  should  on- 
ly see  the  effect  'produced.  The  cause  would  be  invisible. 
But  would  this  occasion  any  doubt,  as  to  the  reality  of 
that  cause  ? — As  to  the  use  of  language  and  other  out- 


113 

ward  signs  ;  it  shows  our  imperfection,  that  we  can  have 
access  to  the  mind  in  no  other  way.  The  direct  access, 
which  our  Creator  has  to  the  mind,  is,  in  all  respects  su- 
perior to  what  we  are  capable  of,  and  of  course  his  in- 
fluence, whatever  might  be  said  of  ours,  can  never  be 
supposed  in  the  smallest  degree  to  infringe  moral  agency. 

But  though  we  allow  ourselves  in  the  unfettered  use 
of  reason  on  this  momentous  subject,  our  ultimate  reliance 
is  on  the  oracles  of  truth.  The  inspired  writers  speak 
of  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  as  being  in  the  highest 
degree  powerful  and  efficacious,  without  the  least  appear- 
ance of  apprehending  that  it  is  incompatible  with  human 
activity,  or  that  there  is  any  occasion  to  defend  the  doc- 
trine against  the  objection  above  stated.  Indeed  they  view 
the  doctrine  in  a  very  different  light,  and  make  use  of  it,  as 
a  motive  to  activity.  "  Work  out  your  own  salvation  with 
fear  and  trembling;  for  it  is  God  who  worketh  in  you, 
both  to  will  and  to  do."  In  this  practical  use  of  the 
doctrine,  there  is  the  most  evident  propriety.  For  what 
can  be  a  more  animating  encouragement  to  a  man,  who 
is  struggling  against  the  power  of  moral  corruption,  and 
is  ready  to  sink  under  a  sense  of  his  weakness,  than  the 
assurance  of  that  divine  Spirit,  which  will  help  his  infir- 
mities, and  render  his  efforts  successful?  As  the  end  of 
the  Spirit's  influence  is  to  subdue  sinful  affection,  and  ex- 
cite that  which  is  holy  ;  the  more  powerful  and  effica- 
cious that  influence  is  understood  to  be,  the  more  en- 
couragement to  diligence  does  the  christian  derive  from  it. 

The  grand  difficulty,  which  attends  this  subject,  seems 
to  arise  from  the  supposition  of  some  analogy  between 
the  power  of  God  upon  the  human  heart,  and  that  ex- 
ercise of  power  among  men,  which  overcomes  or  super- 
sedes vomntary  agency ;  in  other  words,  that  which 
shows  itself  in  cases  of  coercion  or  force. 
15 


Ill 

If  they  who  object  to  our  doctrine,  as  incompatible 
with  man's  free  agency,  will  examine  their  own  thoughts 
carefully,  they  will  find,  I  think,  that  their  objection 
arises  chiefly  from  the  supposition  of  this  analogy  ; — that 
it  arises  from  the  habit  of  comparing  the  effectual  ope- 
ration of  the  divine  power  on  the  mind  and  heart,  with 
instances,  in  which  men  are  constrained  by  superior 
jbrce,  to  do  or  suffer  that,  which  is  against  their  choice. 
Such  analogy  we  deny  altogether ;  and  we  deny  every 
conclusion  drawn  from  it. 

I  cannot  leave  this  part  of  the  subject,  without  re- 
marking on  the  unfairness  of  our  opponents,  in  going  to 
such  an  extreme,  as  they  generally  do,  in  giving  a  con- 
struction to  the  words,  irresistible,  overpowering,  invinci- 
ble, &c.  when  applied  to  the  divine  influence.  Although 
I  am  by  no  means  fond  of  a  very  copious  use  of  such 
terms  ;  yet  I  owe  it  to  those  who  employ  them  more 
freely,  to  say,  that  these  words  are  in  good  use,  in  relation 
to  this  general  subject,  and,  all  prejudice  aside,  will  bear 
a  sense  perfectly  unexceptionable.  This  I  say,  first, 
from  a  consideration  of  the  nature  of  the  case.  Whenev- 
er these  words  are  used,  they  are  to  be  understood  re- 
latively ;  and  the  subject  generally  shows,  to  what  they 
relate.  If  I  speak  of  an  irresistible  or  overpowering  ar- 
gument, I  speak  of  it  with  reference  to  that,  which  might 
be  supposed  to  make  resistance,  or  to  that  which  is  to 
be  overcome  ;  i.e.  I  speak  of  it  with  reference  to  some  rea- 
son or  objection.which  has  been  urged  against  the  point  to 
be  proved,  but  w7hich  is  now  made  to  appear  without 
force,  or  yields  to  an  argument  of  superior  force.  Or  the 
terms  may  relate  to  some  opposing  prejudice  or  passion, 
which  is  now  weakened  and  subdued  by  the  strength  of 
the  reasoning,  or  the  persuasiveness  of  the  eloquence,  di- 
rected against  it.     In  a  manner  like  this,  we  are  always 


115 

understood,  when  we  speak  of  an  irresistible  or  over' 
powering  argument.  The  terms,  in  such  a  case,  are  nev- 
er supposed  to  imply,  that  the  understanding,  or  the 
conscience  is  the  thing  that  is  overcome,  or  subdu- 
ed ;  and  for  the  plain  reason,  that  the  force  of  an  argu- 
ment, however  great,  cannot  produce  such  an  effect.  In 
many  cases,  the  direct  tendency  of  the  irresistible  argu- 
ment is  to  illuminate  and  strengthen  the  moral  faculties 
of  the  mind,  or  to  subdue  that  by  which  they  were  blind- 
ed and  weakened.  Now  who  was  ever  so  weak  as  to 
imagine,  that  an  irresistible,  overpowering  argument  had 
any  tendency  to  break  the  mental  faculties  or  to 
prevent  the  freedom  of  their  operation  in  any  move- 
ment of  moral  agency  ?  We  are  accustomed  to  use 
these  terms  freely,  and  without  fear  of  being  misunder- 
stood, in  relation  to  any  influence,  which  a  man  exercis- 
es over  the  minds  and  moral  actions  of  others,  either  by 
his  eloquence,  his  generosity,  or  his  superior  Avisdom  and 
piety. 

I  would  have  it  remembered,  that,  by  this  illustra- 
tion, I  mean  only  to  evince,  that  the  words  irresistible, 
unconquerable,  &c.  when  applied  by  Calvinistic  writers 
to  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  hearts  of  men, 
are  not  justly  liable  to  the  objection  commonly  urged 
against  them  ;  because  the  nature  of  the  case  shows,  to 
what  they  must  relate.  When  we  represent  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  sanctifying  the  hearts  of  men, 
as  irresistible,  or  overpowering,  we  speak  solely  with  re- 
ference to  that,  which  is  supposed  to  make  resistance, 
or  is  to  be  overcome.  Now  in  the  divine  work  of  sancti- 
fying the  hearts  of  men,  or  causing  them  to  love  God, 
is  it  possible  to  suppose,  that  moral  agency  is  to  be  over- 
come ?  If  their  moral  agency  should  in  fact  be  overcome, 
would  that   help  to   make   them   holy?     And  can  any 


116 

think  that  we  mean  to  assert  this  ?  The  thing  to  be 
overcome  by  the  divine  influence,  is  sinful  inclination, 
corrupt  affection.  Men  naturally  love  the  creature 
more  than  the  Creator.  They  are  earthly  in  their  de- 
sires, and  have  a  disrelish  for  divine  things.  This  is  their 
disorder, — the  disease  of  their  souls.  The  influence  of  the 
Spirit  bears  upon  this  moral  disease.  When  we  say,  that 
influence  is  irresistible,  and  overpowering,  our  meaning  is, 
that  this  disease  of  the  soul,  though  very  powerful  and 
stubborn,  is  made  to  yield  to  the  merciful  agency  of  the 
,  divine  Physician  ; — that  the  remedy  becomes  effectual. 
The  question  really  is,  whether  the  successful  operation 
of  the  divine  Spirit, — in  other  words,  whether  the  effi- 
caciousness of  the  remedy,  applied  to  the  spiritual  disor- 
der of  man,  is  destructive  of  his  moral  agency  ?  There 
is,  in  my  view,  just  as  much  reason  to  ask,  whether  the 
efficaciousness  of  the  remedy,  which  is  applied  for  the 
cure  of  a  fever,  is  destructive  of  moral  agency.  I  take 
it  as  an  admission  of  all,  who  call  themselves  Christians, 
that  the  moral  disease  of  man  is  capable  of  a  cure,  and 
that  it  is  most  desirable,  that  it  should  be  cured.  If  it 
is  cured,  it  must  be  by  a  remedy  suited  to  the  nature 
of  the  disorder.  What  the  nature  of  the  disorder  is, 
God  perfectly  knows ;  and  is  perfectly  able  to  apply  a 
suitable  and  efficacious  remedy.  Now  when  this  almigh- 
ty Physician  kindly  undertakes  the  cure  of  our  souls,  the 
obstinacy  of  the  disorder  yields;  its  resistance  is  taken 
away;  that  is  to  say,  the  heart  is  effectually  cleansed 
from  its  pollution;  love  of  sin,  enmity  to  God,  pride,  in- 
gratitude, and  selfish,  earthly  desires  are  subdued,  and 
man  is  induced  to  love  God,  and  obey  his  commands. 
In  other  words,  the  sinner  is  so  influenced  by  the  Spirit 
of  God,  that  he  freely  forsakes  his  sins,  and,  with  all 
readiness   of  mind,   devotes    himself  to  the  service  of 


117 

Christ.  And  this  is  the  same  as  saying,  that,  instead  of 
exercising  his  moral  agency  wrong,  he  now  exercises  it 
right.  The  nature  of  the  case  shows,  that  this  is  and 
must  be  the  meaning  of  the  words  under  consideration, 
when  applied  by  intelligent  Christians  to.  the  influence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  I  say  therefore,  that  they  will  bear  a 
sense  perfectly  unexceptionable  ;  and  that  this  is  the 
sense,  which  naturally  occurs,  and  which,  for  this  very 
reason,  every  man  is  obliged,  by  the  rules  of  candor  and 
sound  criticism,  to  put  upon  them. 

I  have  a  second  reason  for  thinking  that  those,  who  use 
the  terms  under  consideration,  mean  to  use  them  in  a 
sense,  which  does  not  infringe  moral  agency;  and.  that 
is,  that  they  uniformly  speak  of  man,  even  when  he  is 
supposed  to  be  the  subject  of  that  very  irresistible  in- 
fluence, as  exercising  an  unimpaired  freedom,  and  agency; 
as  choosing  holiness,  refusing  sin,  loving  God,  obeying  the 
gospel.  These  are  certainly  acts  of  a  free,  moral,  ac- 
countable creature,  and,  as  clearly  as  any  thing,  can  show 
the  properties  of  a  moral  agent.  The  plain  meaning  of 
those,  who  speak  of  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  as  irre- 
sistible, or  overpowering,  must  therefore  be,  that  the  di- 
vine influence  not  only  is  consistent  with  moral  agency, 
but  actually  produces,  as  its  proper  effect,  the  free  ex- 
ercise of  moral  agency,  in  all  those  modes  of  it,  which 
are  required  by  the  commands  of  God. 

Now  considering  that  the  terms,  which  have  been  thus 
freely  examined,  are  commonly  used  in  cases  somewhat 
similar  to  that  of  the  divine  influence,  without  ever  be- 
ing supposed  to  imply  any  thing  repugnant  to  the  most 
perfect  moral  agency  ;  considering  also,  that,  when  they 
are  used  in  reference  to  that  influence,  the  nature  of  the 
subject  shows  to  what  they  must  relate,  and  in  what 
sense  thev  must  be  taken;  and  considering,  finallv,  that 


118 

those,  who  use  them,  make  it  perfectly  manifest  by  oth- 
er language  respecting  the  same  subject,  that  they  mean 
nothing,  which  can  interfere  with  any  of  the  principles  of 
moral  action ;  I  appeal  to  you,  my  respected  readers, 
whether  the  outcry,  which  has  been  made  against  what 
is  called  the  resistless,  overpowering  influence  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  the  conversion  of  sinners,  is  consistent  with 
candor,  or  with  justice  ?  I  have  long  been  convinced, 
that  there  is  a  palpable  unfairness  and  violence  in  the 
treatment,  which  the  Orthodox  have  received  on  this 
subject.  If,  in  describing  the  gracious  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  any  of  us  use  language,  that  is  strong  and 
impressive, — language  which  points  to  the  power  and  ob- 
stinacy of  the  evil  to  be  overcome,  and  to  the  certain  ef- 
ficaciousness of  the  remedy  applied ;  our  opposers  labor 
to  put  upon  that  language  the  most  unfavorable  construc- 
tion possible.  Instead  of  kindly  and  fairly  inquiring 
whether  our  words  will  admit  of  an  unexceptionable 
meaning,  and  whether  that  unexceptionable  meaning  is 
the  one  which  we  aim  to  express ;  do  they  not,  in  many 
instances,  make  it  their  object  to  find  out,  if  possible, 
some  meaning,  which  shall  be  marked  with  absurdity, 
and  which  shall,  at  any  rate,  expose  to  contempt  the 
sentiment  they  wish  to  confute  ?  This  is  a  heavier  alle- 
gation than  I  am  fond  of  bringing  against  any  respectable 
men.  But  I  cheerfully  leave  it  to  others  to  decide, 
whether  the  attempts  which  have  frequently  been  made 
to  decry  this  most  precious  doctrine  of  the  effectual 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  renewing  and  sanctifying 
the  hearts  of  sinners,  together  with  the  want  of  candor, 
the  heat  of  feeling,  and  the  vehemence  of  expression, 
which  have  been  exhibited  by  at  least  some  of  our  op- 
posers,  do,  or  do  not  prove  the  allegation  just. 

I  cannot  close  this  letter   without  expressing  my  as- 


119 

tonishment,  that  any  who  profess  to  be  Christians, 
should  set  themselves  against  the  doctrine  of  the  di- 
vine influence.  For  if  we  see  a  moral  disorder  in 
ourselves,  which  we  wish  to  be  subdued ;  it  would 
be  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  we  should  set  a  high 
price  upon  any  thing,  which  would  assist  us  in  sub- 
duing it.  And  if  the  word  of  God  reveals  a  divine  agent, 
whose  almighty  energy  effectually  subdues  the  power  of 
sin;  those  who  have  any  right  feelings,  must  prize  this, 
as  a  most  precious  discovery.  They  must  seek  this 
heavenly  influence,  as  the  most  important  blessing,  earn- 
estly desiring,  that  it  may  be  exerted  upon  their  hearts. 
The  greater  its  energy,  the  more  highly  do  they  value 
it.  Instead  of  feeling  any  objection  against  the  notion 
of  its  being  irresistible  and  overpowering,  they  most  sin- 
cerely pray  that  it  may  be  so.  They  know  it  is  direct- 
ed to  the  one  grand  work  of  subduing  sin,  of  purifying 
the  heart,  and  guiding  into  the  truth.  They  wish  this 
work  to  be  done  effectually.  Every  thing  in  them, 
which  makes  resistance,  they  wish  may  be  overcome. 
Their  prayer  is,  "  let  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
be  too  powerful  to  be  resisted.  Our  own  efforts  must 
be  unavailing,  unless  aided  from  above.  May  God  work 
effectually  in  us  both  to  will  and  to  do.  We  crave  the 
operation  of  that  efficacious,  invincible  power,  which 
will  subdue  every  corrupt  affection,  and  sanctify  us 
throughout  in  body,  soul  and  spirit." — Such  must  be  the 
cordial  prayer  of  every  one,  who  knows  himself,  and  has 
a  desire  to  be  like  the  blessed  Jesus.  And  I  am  con- 
strained again  to  express  my  astonishment,  that  any  can 
be  found,  who  calumniate  or  despise  that  doctrine  of  di- 
vine influence,  which  is  one  of  the  most  distinguishing 
and  most  attractive  features  of  the  Christian  religion. 


LETTER  X. 

My  respected  friends, 

In  the  foregoing  letters,  I  have  encfeavored  to  ar- 
range my  remarks  on  the  principal  doctrines  embraced 
by  the  Orthodox,  with  as  much  regard  to  order  and  con- 
nexion, as  possible.  In  consequence  of  this,  I  find  I 
have  omitted  several  passages  in  the  Sermon  before  me, 
to  which  particular  attention  seemed  to  be  due.  It  has 
not  been  my  object  to  animadvert  on  every  sentence, 
which  I  might  deem  exceptionable.  But  there  are  in 
the  Sermon  a  few  passages  of  a  general  character,  which 
I  have  not  yet  brought  into  view,  but  which  cannot  just- 
ly be  suffered  to  pass  unnoticed.  To  these  I  would  now 
for  a  short  time  invite  your  attention. 

I  have  already  remarked  on  what  I  consider  a 
palpable  instance  of  injustice  in  many  Unitarian  writers  ; 
namely  ;  that  they  represent  certain  opinions  to  be  pe- 
culiarly and  exclusively  theirs,  when  in  reality  they  are 
embraced  and  inculcated  by  the  Orthodox.  The  Ser- 
mon furnishes  some  examples  of  this,  in  respect  to  the 
mediation  of  Christ,  besides  what  I  have  before  notic- 
ed. The  author,  in  pursuance  of  his  general  design, 
gives  a  summary  account  of  the  views,  which  he  and  his 
brethren  entertain  on  this  subject,  and  which,  according 
to  his  representation,  distinguish  Unitarians  from  the 
Orthodox.  But  with  respect  to  these  views  substantial- 
ly,— I  must  say,  they  form  no  such  distinction.  If  Uni- 
tarians hold  them,  there  is,  thus  far,  no  controversy  be- 
tween them  and  us.  And  the  agreement  of  the  two 
parties  in  these  views,  should  have  been  asserted ;  just 


121 

as  we  assert  that  they  are  agreed  in  believing  the  exis- 
tence of  a  God,  and  the  doctrine  of  a  resurrection.  So  that 
if,  by  professing  these  views,  the  Author  gets  any  cred- 
it to  himself  and  his  brethren,  exclusively  of  the  Ortho- 
dox, he  gets  it  unfairly. 

The  principal  of  these  views  respecting  the  media- 
tion of  Christ,  I  shall  now  quote  from  the  Sermon  ;  and 
as  I  wish  to  make  all  convenient  despatch,  I  shall  take 
the  liberty  at  the  same  time  to  repeat  them,  as.  belong- 
ing to  myself  and  my  brethren. 

M  We  believe,  that  Christ  was  sent  by  the  Father  to  effect  a  moral, 
or  spiritual  deliverance  of  mankind  ;  that  is,  to  rescue  men  from  sin 
and  its  consequences,  and  to  bring  them  to  a  state  of  everlasting  pu- 
rity and  happiness.  We  believe,  too,  that  he  accomplishes  this  sub- 
lime purpose  by  a  variety  of  methods;  by  his  instructions  respecting 
God's  unity,  parental  character,  and  moral  government,  which  are 
admirably  htted  to  reclaim  the  world  from  idolatry,  and  impiety,  to 
the  knowledge,  love,  and  obedience  of  the  Creator;  by  his  promises 
of  pardon  to  the  penitent,  and  of  divine  assistance  to  those,  who  la- 
bour for  progress  in  moral  excellence  :  by  the  light  which  he  has 
thrown  on  the  path  of  duty  ;  by  his  own  spotless  example,  in  which 
the  loveliness  and  sublimity  of  virtue  shine  forth  to  warm  and  quick- 
en, as  well  as  guide  us  to  perfection  ;  by  his  threatenings  against  in- 
corrigible guilt ;  by  his  glorious  discoveries  of  immortality ;  by  his 
sufferings  and  death  ;  by  that  signal  event,  the  resurrection,  which 
powerfully  bore  witness  to  his  divine  mission,  and  brought  down  to 
men's  senses  a  future  life  ;  by  his  continual  intercession,  which  ob- 
tains for  us  spiritual  aid  and  blessings  ;  and  by  the  power  with  which 
he  is  invested  of  raising  the  dead,  judging  the  world,  and  conferring 
the  everlasting  rewards,  promised  to  the  faithful." "  We  be- 
lieve, that  Jesus,  instead  of  making  the  Father  merciful,  is  sent 
by  the  Father's  mercy  te  be  our  Saviour ;  that  he  is  nothing 
to  the  human  race,  but  what  he  is  by  God's  appointment ;  that  he 
communicates  nothing  but  what  God  empowers  him  to  bestow  ;  that 
eur  father  in  heaven  is  originally,  essentially  and  eternally  placable, 
and  disposed  to  forgive  ;  and  that  his  unborrowed,  underived,  and  un- 
changeable love,  is  the  only  fountain  of  what  flows  to  us  through  his 
Son.  We  conceive,  that  Jesus  is  dishonoured,  not  srlorified,  by  as- 
16 


122 

cribing  to  him  an  influence,  which  clouds  the  splendour  of  divine  be- 
nevolence."  "  Whilst  we  gratefully  acknowledge,  that  he  came 

to  rescue  us  from  punishment,  we  believe,  that  he  was  sent  on  a 
still  nobler  errand,  namely,  to  deliver  us  from  sin  itself,  and  to  form 
us  to  a  sublime  and  heavenly  virtue.  We  regard  him  as  a  Saviour, 
chiefly  as  he  is  the  light,  physician,  and  guide  of  the  dark,  diseased, 
and  wandering  mind.  No  influence  in  the  universe  seems  to  us  so 
glorious,  as  that  over  the  character  ;  and  no  redemption  so  worthy 
of  thankfulness,  as  the  restoration  of  the  soul  to  purity.  Without 
this,  pardon,  were  it  possible,  would  be  of  little  value.  Why  pluck 
the  sinner  from  hell,  if  a  hell  be  left  to  burn  in  his  own  breast  ?  Why 
raise  him  to  heaven,  if  he  remain  a  stranger  to  its  sanctity  and  love?" 
"  We  believe,  that  faith  in  this  religion,  is  of  no  worth,  and  con- 
tributes nothing  to  salvation,  any  farther  than  as  it  uses  these  doc- 
trines, precepts,  promises,  and  the  whole  life,  character,  sufferings, 
and  triumphs  of  Jesus,  as  the  means  of  purifying  the  mind,  and  of 
changing  it  into  the  likeness  of  his  celestial  excellence." 

These  views  are  all  ours  ;  and  we  are  happy  to  ex- 
press them  in  the  simple,  elegant,  and  forcible  language 
of  this  Sermon.  And  we  would  indulge  the  hope,  that 
the  injustice  of  representing  them  as  peculiar  to  Unitari- 
ans, in  distinction  from  the  Orthodox,  will  not  soon  be 
repeated. — We  have,  indeed,  other  and  higher  views, 
as  you  may  have  already  perceived,  respecting  the  me- 
diation of  Christ ;  but  none  incompatible  with  these. 
And  let  me  say,  it  is  very  evident  to  us,  that  those  oth- 
er and  higher  views,  which  are  peculiar  to  the  Ortho- 
dox, respecting  the  atonement  and  mediation  of  Christ, 
invest  all  the  practical  views,  above  exhibited,  with 
new  beauty  and  force,  and  render  them,  in  a  higher  de- 
gree, effectual  m  promoting  a  devout  and  holy  life. 

I  now  proceed,  with   increasing  surprise,  to   notice 
the  same   species   of  injustice,  respecting  the  nature  of 
christian  virtue,  or  holiness.     The  injustice,  which  I  now 
charge  against  this  Sermon,  lies  in  this  ; — that  Orthodox 
ministers  and  Christians,  especially  those  in  New  Eng- 


A23 

land,  are  held  up  to  public  view,  as  rejecting  the  senti- 
ments here  referred  to,  respecting  the  nature  of  holi- 
ness, when,  in  fact,  all  that  is  particularly  valuable  in 
these  sentiments,  is  insisted  upon,  and  abundantly  illus- 
trated by  various  Orthodox  writers,  whom  we  hold  in 
the  highest  estimation.  Those,  who  are  acquainted  with 
the  writings  of  the  most  respectable  Divines  in  New 
England,  and  those  who  have  statedly  heard  the  preach- 
ing of  Orthodox  ministers  of  the  present  age,  and  who 
know  the  general  sentiments  of  Orthodox  Christians,  will 
have  no  difficulty  in  determining,  whether  impartial  justice 
is  here  rendered  us.  I  speak  in  the  name  of  my  brethren 
generally.  Do  not  we  believe,  as  well  as  Unitarians,  "  that 
the  moral  faculties  of  man  are  the  grounds  of  responsibili- 
ty, and  the  highest  distinctions  of  our  nature,  and  that  no 
act  is  praiseworthy,  any  farther  than  it  springs  from 
their  exertion  ?"  When  we  speak  of  the  influence  of 
God's  Spirit  on  the  mind  of  man,  do  not  we,  as  well  as 
Unitarians,  "  mean  a  moral,  illuminating,  and  persuasive 
influence,  not  physical,  not  compulsory  ?"  Do  not  we, 
as  well  as  they,  "  give  the  first  place  among  the  virtues, 
to  the  love  of  God  P*  Do  not  we  believe, "  that  this  prin- 
ciple is  the  true  end  and  happiness  of  our  being  ;  that 
we  were  made  for  union  with  our  Creator ;  that  his  in- 
finite perfection  is  the  only  sufficient  object  and  true 
resting  place  for  the  insatiable  desires  and  unlimited  ca- 
pacities of  the  human  mind  ; — that  the  love  of  God  is 
not  only  essential  to  happiness,  but  to  the  strength  and  per- 
fection of  all  the  virtues  ;  that  conscience,  without  the 
sanction  of  God's  authority  and  retributive  justice,  would 
be  a  weak  director;  that  benevolence,  unless  nourished 

by  communion  with  his  goodness, could  not   thrive 

amidst  the  selfishness  and   thanklcssness  of  the  world-; 


124 

and  that  God — is  the  life,  motive  and  sustainer  of 

virtue  in  the  human  soul  ?" 

Do  not  we  believe,  as  well  as  this  Author  and  his  breth- 
ren, "  that  great  care  is  necessary  to  distinguish  the  love 
of  God  from  its  counterfeits  ?"     Do  not  we  "  think  that 
much,  which  is  called  piety,  is  worthless  ?"     Should  not 
we  be  as  ready,  as  they  are,  to  say,  that,  "  if  religion  be 
the  shipwreck  of  the  understanding,  we  cannot  keep  too 
far  from  it ;" — and  "  to  maintain  that  fanaticism,  partial 
insanity, — and  ungovernable   transports,   are   any  thing 
rather   than   piety  ?"     Is  it  not  as  favorite  an  opinion 
with  us,  as  with  them,  "  that  the  true  love  of  God  is  a 
moral  sentiment,  founded  on  a  clear  perception,  and  con- 
sisting in  a  high  esteem  and  veneration  of  his  moral  per- 
fections ?" — This  Author  says  in  the  name  of  his  breth- 
ren ;  "  We  esteem  him,  and  him  only,  a  pious  man,  who 
practically  conforms  to  God's  moral  perfection  and  gov- 
ernment;   who  shows   his  delight  in  God's  benevolence 
by  loving  and  serving  his  neighbor  ;  his  delight  in  God's 
justice  by  being  resolutely  upright ;    his  sense  of  God's 
purity,  by  regulating  his   thoughts,  imagination,  and  de- 
sires;   and   whose   business,  conversation  and   life   are 
swayed  by  a  regard  to  God's   presence   and  authority. 
In  all  things  else,  men  may  deceive  themselves.     Dis- 
ordered nerves  may  give  them  strange  sights,  and  sounds, 
and  impressions.     Texts  of  Scripture  may  come  to  them, 
as  from  heaven.     Their  souls  may  be  moved,  and  their 
confidence  in   God's   favour  be  undoubting.     But  in  all 
this  there  is  no  religion.     The  question  is,  do  they  love 
God's  commands, — and  give  up  to  these  their  habits  and 
passions  ?    Without  this,  ecstacy  is  a  mockery.    One  sur- 
render of  desire  to  God's  will  is  worth  a  thousand  trans- 
ports.      We  do  not  judge  of  the  bent  of  men's  minds  by 
their  raptures,  any  more  than  we  judge  of  the  direction 


125 

of  a  tree  during  a  storm.  We  rather  suspect  loud  pro- 
fession ;  for  we  have  observed,  that  deep  feeling  is  gen- 
erally noiseless,  and  least  seeks  display." 

To  all  these  views  we  most  cordially  subscribe.  A 
man,  who  should  undertake  to  exhibit  elegantly,  and  in 
a  few  words,  what  Edwards  wrote  on  Religious  Affec- 
tions, could  not  do  it  better,  than  in  the  language  of  this 
Author.  Edwards,  and  Bellamy,  and  many  other 
authors,  most  beloved,  and  most  frequently  perused, 
among  the  Orthodox  in  New  England,  have  labored 
with  great  assiduity  and  success,  to  distinguish  true 
religion  from  its  various  counterfeits,  to  put  down  all 
the  excitements  and  transports  which  spring  from  hu- 
man imagination  or  passion,  and  to  recommend  that  re- 
ligion, which  consists  in  conformity  to  God's  moral  char- 
acter, and  obedience  to  his  law.  And  if  the  Author  of 
this  Sermon  should  call  to  mind  all  the  theological  works, 
with  which  he  was  once  conversant,  he  would  not  improb- 
ably find,  that  in  regard  to  these  very  sentiments,  which 
he  represents  as  peculiar  to  Unitarians,  he  is  under  no 
small  obligation  to  Orthodox  writers.  No  writers  have 
ever  shown  better  than  those  above  mentioned,  "  that 
religious  warmth  is  only  to  be  valued,  when  it  springs 
naturally  from  an  improved  character ;  when  it  comes 
unforced  ; — when  it  is  the  warmth  of  a  mind,  which  un- 
derstands God  by  being  like  him  ;  and  when  instead  of 
disordering,  it  exalts  the  understanding,  invigorates  con- 
science, gives  a  pleasure  to  common  duties,  and  is  seen 
to  exist  in  connexion  with  cheerfulness,  judiciousness,  and 
a  reasonable  frame  of  mind." — This  Sermon  simply  as- 
serts these  just  and  important  sentiments  ;  but  the  wri- 
ters above  named,  have  largely  illustrated  and  confirmed 
them.     And  with  Orthodox  ministers  in  New  England, 


126 

this  distinction  between  true  piety  and  its  counterfeits 
is,  more  than  almost  any  thing  else,  the  subject  of  preach- 
ing and  conversation.  Probably  however,  we  still  fall 
short  of  our  duty.  And  we  ought  to  deem  it  a  favor,  if 
any  one  shall  come  forward  to  chastise  our  negligence, 
and  to  excite  us  to  greater  seriousness  and  fidelity  in  this 
momentous  concern,  even  though  we  may  be  conscious 
that  he  does  it,  by  denying  us  the  credit  of  sentiments, 
which    we  hold   precious  as  our  life. 

This  Author  proceeds.  "  Another  important  branch 
of  religion,  we  believe  to  be  love  to  Christ.  The  great- 
ness of  the  work  of  Jesus,  the  spirit  with  which  he  exe- 
cuted it,  and  the  sufferings  which  he  bore  for  our  salva- 
tion, we  feel  to  be  strong  claims  on  our  gratitude  and 
veneration.  We  see  in  nature  no  beauty  to  be  compar- 
ed with  the  loveliness  of  his  character ;  nor  do  we  find 
on  earth  a  benefactor,  to  whom  we  owe  an  equal  debt." 
— Does  all  the  honor  and  happiness  of  entertaining  such 
views  as  these,  belong  exclusively  to  Unitarians  ?  Do 
these  sentiments  respecting  Christ  distinguish  them  from 
the  Orthodox  ? — I  would  ask  the  same  questions  respect- 
ing most  of  the  observations,  which  this  Author  makes 
on  the  benevolent  virtues  ?  Is  it  a  peculiar,  distinguishing 
mark  of  Unitarians,  to  attach  great  importance  to  these 
virtues?  Let  any  man  read  the  books,  or  hear  the 
preaching,  which  we  most  admire,  and  then  say. 

Without  proceeding  any  farther,  it  could  not  but  be  evi- 
dent to  my  readers,  that  they  cannot  unhesitatingly,  and 
without  examination,  repose  full  confidence  in  the  rep- 
resentations, which  are  found  in  this  Sermon,  respecting 
the  sentiments  of  the  Orthodox. — On  such  a  subject  as 
this,  and  with  respect  to  such  a  writer,  I  should  have 
preferred  silence,  had  not  justice  required  me  to  speak. 


127 

But  I  knew  it  could  not  be  made  consistent  with  truth  and 
propriety,  that  those  ministers  and  Christians,  who  are 
denominated  Orthodox,  should  lie  under  the  reproach  of 
rejecting  a  great  number  of  the  most  obvious  principles  of 
religion; — principles,  which  they  believe  to  be  of  vital 
importance  to  the  system  of  Christianity,  and  which  they 
maintain  with  a  seriousness  and  ardor,  which  bear  ample 
testimony  to  the  sincerity  of  their  faith. 

On  this  particular  subject,as  well  as  on  every  other,which 
is  introduced  into  these  Letters,  I  feel  happy,  in  address- 
ing myself  to  those,  who  have  chosen  candor  and  liberali- 
ty, as  the  honorable  badge  of  their  party.  Let  me  ask 
you,  then,  my  respected  friends,  whether  it  can  detract 
any  thing  from  the  value  of  those  truths,  which  you  be- 
lieve, that  they  are  believed  also  by  the  Orthodox  ;  and 
whether  the  honor  of  believing  such  truths  would  be  any 
the  less  to  you,  if  it  should  be  shared  equally  by  us  ? — 
What  end,  then,  can  this  Author  seek  to  accomplish,  by 
making  a  selection  of  some  of  the  most  unexceptionable, 
most  amiable,  most  attractive  truths  of  religion,  and  rep- 
resenting them  as  belonging  peculiarly  to  Unitarians,  and 
as  distinguishing  them  from  us, — when  m  fact  we  believe 
them,  to  say  the  least,  as  sincerely  as  they  do  ?  Possi- 
bly credit  and  influence  may,  by  such  means,  be  secur- 
ed to  Unitarians.  But  there  are  men,  who  will  in- 
quire, whether  they  are  secured  justly?  Possibly  re- 
proach or  disgrace  may,  by  the  same  means,  be  cast  up- 
on us.  But  is  it  deserved  ?  And  pray  tell  me,  what 
good  end  can  be  answered  by  possessing  credit,  which 
is  unjustly  acquired,  or  by  indicting  disgrace,  which  is 
not  merited  ? — This  Author  advances  much,  to  which  we 
most  cheerfully  subscribe,  in  praise  of  candor  and  chari- 
table judgment  toward  those,  who  differ  from  us  in  re- 
ligious  opinion.     Referring  to  this,  he  says ;  "There    i^- 


128 

one  branch  of  benevolence,  which  I  ought  not  to  pass 
over  in  silence,  because  we  think  that  we  conceive  of  it 
more  highly  and  more  justly,  than  many  of  our  breth- 
ren." And  he  shows  how  strongly  he  reprobates  the 
conduct  of  a  Christian,  who  is  "  covered  with  badges  of 
party,  who  shuts  his  eyes  on  the  virtues,  and  his  ears 
on  the  arguments  of  his  opponents,  arrogating  all  ex- 
cellence to  his  own  sect,  &c."  I  wish  there  were  less  ap- 
pearance of  inconsistency  between  these  charming  pas- 
sages in  the  Sermon,  and  those  others,  on  which  I  have 
thought  it  necessary  to  animadvert. 

Though  I  intend  not  by  any  means,  to  enumerate 
all  the  instances  of  misrepresentation,  which  occur  in 
this  Sermon  ;  there  is  one  passage,  respecting  moral 
government,  upon  which  I  would  detain  you  a  few  mo- 
ments. "  If  there  be  any  principle  of  morality,"  says 
this  Author,  "  it  is  this,  that  we  are  accountable  beings, 
only  because  we  have  consciences,  a  power  of  knowing 
and  performing  our  duty  ;  and  that  in  as  far  as  we  want 
this  power,  we  are  incapable  of  sin,  guilt,  or  blame.  We 
should  call  a  parent  a  monster,  who  should  judge  and 
treat  his  children  in  opposition  to  this  principle  ;  and 
yet  this  enormous  immorality  is  charged  on  our  Father 
in  heaven." — The  author  would  evidently  impute  this 
gross  impiety  to  the  Orthodox.  And  yet  I  must  say,  in 
their  behalf,  that  the  principle  for  which  he  contends, 
is  ours,  as  well  as  his.  We  believe  that  this  principle 
is  inwrought  into  our  moral  nature  ;  that  every  man 
feels  its  truth ;  that  every  judgment  he  passes  upon  his 
own  actions,  and  every  conviction  of  duty,  implies  a 
practical  acknowledgment  of  it ;  in  a  word,  that  it  is  one 
of  those  principles,  which  need  no  arguments  to  prove 
them,  because  they  are  themselves  plainer,  than  any 
thing  which  can  be  adduced  as  proof 


129 

The  views,  which  we  entertain  of  the  moral  corrupt 
tion  of  man,  whether  original  or  superinduced,  and  in 
whatever  degree  it  may  exist,  are  perfectly  consistent 
with  the  principle,  "  that  we  are  accountable  beings, 
only  because  we  have  consciences,  and  a  power  of  know- 
ing and  performing  our  duty."  Indeed,  such  are  our 
notions  of  the  nature  of  an  intelligent,  moral  being, 
that  we  conceive  it  to  be  utterly  impossible,  that 
any  degree  of  depravity  should  take  away  his  con- 
science, or  his  power  of  knowing  and  doing  his  duty. 
These,  as  we  think,  are  inseparable  properties  of  an  ac- 
countable creature,  in  all  stages  of  his  existence,  and 
whatever  may  be  his  circumstances,  or  his  character. 
He  cannot  be  subject  to  law,  or  accountable  for  his  ac- 
tions, without  these  properties,  any  more  than  he  can, 
without  a  soul. — It  is  with  these  views,  we  hold  the 
doctrine  of  man's  depravity.  We  believe  it,  not  in 
such  an  unrestricted,  absolute  sense,  as  is  sometimes  sup- 
posed, but  with  all  the  limitations,  which  result  from  its 
connexion  with  other  acknowledged  truths.  Explana- 
tions, like  those  above  suggested,  ought  always  to  be 
considered,  as  making  a  part  of  the  declaration  of  our 
faith;  and,  in  this  case  they  are  peculiarly  necessary,  on 
account  of  the  facility,  with  which  the  doctrine  comes 
into  alliance  with  various  hurtful  errors.- — Let  it  there- 
fore be  remembered,  that  if  any  one  represents  us  as 
believing,  that  men  are  depraved  in  such  a  sense,  that 
their  conscience,  or  their  power  of  knowing  and  doing 
their  duty  is  taken  away,  or  any  principle  of  free  moral 
agency  infringed ; — in  other  words,  if  any  one  represents 
us  as  believing  the  doctrine  of  depravity,  whether  innate 
or  acquired,  in  such  a  sense,  as  makes  it  any  less  fit  and 
proper,  that  God  should  place  men  under  a  moral  gov- 
ernment, and  address  to  them  commands,  promises,  and 
17 


130 

threats,  than  if  they  were  perfectly  tree  from  corrup- 
tion ;  they  give  a  representation  of  our  views,  as  really 
incorrect,  as  if  they  should  accuse  us  of  holding,  that,  in 
consequence  of  men's  depravity,  they  have  no  eyes  to 
see  the  light  of  the  sun,  and  no  ears  to  hear  the  noise 
of  thunder. 

If  there  is  any  principle  respecting  the  moral  gov- 
ernment of  God,  which  the  Orthodox  clergy  in  New 
England  earnestly  labor  to  inculcate,  it  is  this ;  that,  a3 
accountable  beings,  we  have  a  conscience,  and  a  power  of 
knowing  and  performing  our  duty.  Our  zeal  in  defence 
of  this  principle  has  been  such,  as  to  occasion  no  small 
umbrage  to  some,  who  are  attached  to  every  feature 
and  every  phraseology  of  Calvinism.  On  this  subject, 
there  is,  in  fact,  a  well  known  difference  between  our 
views,  and  those  of  some  modern,  as  well  as  more  an- 
cient Divines,  who  rank  high  on  the  side  of  Orthodoxy. 
I  urge  it,  therefore,  as  a  matter  of  justice,  that  how 
earnestly  soever  the  Author  of  this  Sermon  might  have 
been  disposed  to  censure  the  opinions  of  others,  he  ought 
to  have  made  an  express  exception  in  our  favor.  And 
considering  what  advantages  he  has  had  of  being  ac- 
quainted with  the  modes  of  thinking  and  preaching, 
which  generally  prevail  among  the  Orthodox  ministers 
of  New  England,  I  hardly  know  how  christian  candor 
ought  to  shape  its  apology  for  this  oversight. 

It  is  readily  admitted,  that  some  men  may  be  found 
among  us,  whom  we  venerate  and  honor,  as  advocates 
for  true  religion,  who  yet  have  preached  or  written  ob- 
scurely, or  confusedly,  on  the  subject  of  depravity,  free 
agency,  and  a  moral  government.  But  surely,  we  are 
not,  as  a  body,  to  be  charged  with  entertaining  all  the 
opinions,  and  with  justifying  all  the  expressions  of  every 
man,  who  believes  generally  the  principles   of  Ortho- 


131 

doxy.  I  atn  confident,  that  you  would  strongly  condemn 
us,  if  Ave  should  treat  you  in  such  a  manner  as  this. 
Should  I,  in  these  Letters,  impute  to  you,  as  a  Society 
of  Unitarians,  all  the  extravagancies  of  opinion,  which 
some  German,  English,  or  American  Unitarians  have 
held,  and  all  the  rashness  and  violence  of  language, 
which  they  have  employed  ;  you  would  doubtless 
think  me  guilty  of  acting  contrary  to  fairness  and 
equity.  I  have  endeavored  to  avoid  the  most  distant 
approach  to  this  species  of  unfairness  ;  and  therefore 
have  purposely  refrained  from  associating  passages  in 
this  Sermon  with  passages  from  those  Unitarian  writers, 
against  whom  the  greatest  public  odium  has  been  ex- 
cited.— Now  on  the  other  hand  ;  suppose  you  find  in 
an  author,  or  hear  from  a  preacher,  reputed  Orthodox, 
an  unguarded  expression  on  the  subject  of  depravity,  or 
moral  agency,  or  on  any  other  subject, — an  expression  lia- 
ble, at  least,  to  misconstruction,  and  suited  to  excite  pre- 
judice against  Orthodoxy  ;  will  you  impute  that  expres- 
sion, or  the  opinion  conveyed  by  it,  to  the  Orthodox 
generally  ?  We  may  perhaps  consider  the  expression, 
and  the  opinion,  as  exceptionable,  as  you  do  ;  and  it  may 
be  as  really  contrary  to  truth,  for  you  to  impute  them 
to  us,  as  for  us  to  impute  them  to  you. — The  question 
is,  have  we  authorised  that  writer,  or  that  preacher,  to 
speak  in  our  name,  and  publicly  to  make  known  our 
faith  ?  Or  have  we  ever,  in  any  form,  declared  our  un- 
qualified assent  to  his  opinions,  or  professed  those 
which  are  like  them?  If  not,  why  should  every  spec- 
ulation and  every  expression  of  his  be  charged  to 
our  account  ?  Infidels  may  just  as  well  charge  up- 
on the  whole  community  of  Cnristians,  the  irregularities 
and  vices  of  every  individual,  who  is  regarded  as  belong- 
ing to  that  community      There  have  been,  within  a  few 


132 

years,  some  instances  of  this  kind  of  unfairness  towards 
the  Orthodox  generally,  and  particularly  towards  some  of 
the  subdivisions  among  them,  which  cannot  but  be  rep- 
robated by  all  men,  who  possess  common  justice,  or  com- 
mon sense. 


LETTER  XL 

My  respected  friends, 

I  have  reserved,  as  the  last  subject  of  discussion  in 
these  Letters,  the  practical  influence,  or  tendency  of  the 
system,  embraced  by  the  Orthodox. 

To  my  mind,  it  is  exceedingly  obvious,  that  repre- 
sentations are  often  made  on  this  subject,  which  are 
radically  erroneous,  and  that,  by  these  means,  an  im- 
pression is  produced  on  the  feelings  of  many,  hostile  at 
once  to  their  personal  welfare,  and  to  the  interests  of 
religion.  Such  representations  ought  to  be  correct- 
ed, and  the  subject,  which  must,  by  both  parties,  be 
considered  as  highly  important,  to  be  set  in  a  true  light. 
The  salutary  influence  of  the  Orthodox  system  has  been 
often  illustrated,  and  has  appeared  to  me  so  perfectly 
clear,  that  it  has  been  a  matter  of  astonishment,  that 
any  intelligent  man  should  entertain  a  doubt  respecting 
it.  The  most  candid  construction,  which  I  have  been 
able  to  put  upon  the  opinions  and  representations  of 
our  opponents,  as  to  the  practical  tendency  of  Ortho- 
doxy, is,  that  they  take  an  erroneous  view  of  the  system 
itself.  They  behold  it  in  a  false  light.  They  overlook 
its  genuine  features,  and  see,  or  think  they  see  deformi- 
ties, from  which  it  is  wholly  free.     Now  admitting  that 


133 

the  system  does  appear  thus  in  their  view,  I  can  easily 
account  for  it,  that  they  should  believe  its  moral  tenden- 
cy to  be  so  mischievous.  It"  the  system  of  the  Ortho- 
dox were,  in  truth,  what  Priestley,  and  Fellowes,  and  Bel- 
sham,  and  even  the  Author  of  this  Sermon  have  repre- 
sented it  to  be  ;  its  consequences  would  indeed  be  per- 
nicious. So  I  might  say,  if  Christianity  were,  in  truth, 
that  monstrous  thing,  which  infidel  philosophers  have 
represented  it  to  be  ;  the  opposition  and  hatred,  which 
have  risen  up  against  it,  would  have  been  just.  But  it 
is  not  so.  And  the  Advocates  for  Christianity  have  a 
right  to  say,  and  are  bound  to  say,  and  to  prove,  that 
it  is  a  system  of  consummate  excellence  ;  that  the  enmi- 
ty of  its  opposers  against  it,  has  been  altogether  unjust 
and  criminal ;  that  it  merits  the  highest  attachment,  and 
that,  to  all  its  friends,  it  is  fraught  with  inestimable  bles- 
sings. I  would  not  make  a  reproachful  comparison. 
But  we  know,  that  the  Orthodox  system  is  not  what 
Unitarians  have  declared  it  to  be.  Its  genuine  features 
are  not  seen  at  all  in  the  picture,  which  they  have  drawn 
of  it.  Now  the  question  to  be  discussed  in  this  Letter, 
is,  not  whether  such  a  system  of  doctrines,  as  Unitarians 
impute  to  the  Orthodox,  is  mischievous  in  its  tendency ; 
but  what  is  the  influence  of  that  system,  which  we  really 
believe,  and  teach  ? 

The  Author  of  this  Sermon  thinks,  that  it  is  "  unfa- 
vorable to  devotion  ;" — "  that  it  takes  from  the  Father 
the  Supreme  affection  which  is  his  due,  and  transfers  it 
to  the  Son;" — "  that  it  awakens  human  transport,  rath- 
er than  that  deep  veneration  of  the  moral  perfections 
of  God,  which  is  the  essence  of  piety  ;" — "  that  it  robs 
Christ's  death  of  interest, — weakens  our  sympathy  with 
his  sufferings,  and  is,  of  all  others,  most  unfavorable  to 
a  love  of  Christ,  founded  on  a  sense  of  his  sacrifices  for 


134 

mankind  ;" — '•  that  it  discourages  the  timid,  gives  excuses 
to  the  bad,  feeds  the  vanity  of  the  fanatical,  and  offers 
shelter  to  the  feelings  of  the  malignant ;" — "  that  it  tends 
strongly  to  pervert  the  moral  faculty,  to  form  a  gloomy, 
forbidding,  and  servile  religion,  and  to  lead  men  to  sub- 
stitute censoriousness,  bitterness,  and  persecution,  for  a 
tender  and  impartial  charity  ;',* — that  it  is  a  "  system, 
which  begins  with  degrading  human  nature,  and  may  be 
expected  to  end  in  pride." — Priestley,  Belsham,  and  oth- 
ers, in  perfect  accordance  with  this  Author,  have  re- 
presented the  system  of  Orthodoxy  to  be  rigorous,  gloomy, 
and  horrible, — the  extravagance  of  error, — a  mischievous 
compound  of  impiety  and  idolatry. 

It  would  be  a  sad  case,  if  the  Unitarians  above  nam- 
ed, had  no  better  proof  to  offer  of  a  candid,  liberal  spirit, 
than  what  they  have  given  in  these  heavy,  but  unsup- 
ported charges, — these  harsh  and  causeless  censures.  I 
might  very  safely  leave  such  censures  as  these,  without 
any  remark, — trusting  that  their  extreme  violence  would 
be  sufficiently  visible  to  counteract  any  unfavorable  ef- 
fect, which  they  might  be  likely  to  produce. — But  I  have 
another  object  in  view,  which  requires  me  not  to  pass 
over  this  subject  lightly.  I  wish,  in  as  comprehensive 
a  manner  as  possible,  to  give  a  direct  elucidation  of  the 
salutary  influence  of  the  system,  which  the  Orthodox  be- 
lieve. The  confutation  of  particular  charges,  as  far  as 
necessary,  may  be  found  in  this  general  elucidation. 

I  shall  first  inquire,  whether  the  grand  and  obvious 
properties  of  that  system  of  religion,  which  we  believe, 
are  not  adapted  to  produce  a  good  influence  in  a  general 
view,  on  those  who  embrace  it.  After  this,  I  shall  advert 
to  some  particular  parts  of  Christian  virtue  and  duty,  and 
inquire  in  what  way  they  are  likely  to  be  affected  by  the 
Orthodox  system. 


135 

What  then  are  the  grand,  obvious  properties,  which 
a  system  of  religion  must  have,  in  order  to  produce  a 
good  influence  on  the  character  and  practice  of  those 
who  embrace  it  ? 

First.  It  must  exhibit  a  Being  of  infinite  perfection, 
as  the  object  of  worship.  If  there  is  any  thing  faulty  in 
the  character  of  him,  whom  we  worship,  it  will,  accord- 
ing to  a  well  known  principle,  have  a  bad  effect  upon 
our  character.  But  the  God  whom  we  love  and  adore, 
must  not  be  described  by  our  opposers.  Or  if  they  do 
describe  him,  their  description  must  not  be  received,  in- 
stead of  ours.  The  Orthodox  have  described  the  char- 
acter of  God,  as  infinite  and  immutable  in  every  di- 
vine perfection,  both  natural  and  moral ;  as  ami- 
able and  glorious  in  the  highest  possible  degree.  Is 
not  such  a  God  worthy  of  supreme  love  and  ado- 
ration ?  And  can  the  sincere  worship  of  such  a  Be- 
ing fail  to  promote  moral  purity  in  us  ?  Can  it  be  oth- 
erwise, than  that  the  habit  of  affectionately  and  devoutly 
contemplating  the  perfect  justice  and  benevolence,  which 
we  ascribe  to  God,  must  have  a  powerful  tendency  to 
make  us  just  and  benevolent  ?  I  know  we  are  accused 
of  worshipping  a  Being,  who  is  unjust,  partial,  and  malig- 
nant. And  it  is  a  matter  of  course  that  we  should  be 
accused  of  imitating  that  injustice,  partiality  and  malig- 
nity, which  are  thought  to  belong  to  the  character  of 
him,  whom  we  worship.  But  it  remains  to  be  proved, 
that  such  attributes  do  in  fact  belong  to  the  character, 
which  is  the  object  of  our  adoration.  It  has  often  been 
affirmed  by  our  opponents  ;  but  the  unsupported  affir- 
mation, that  we  worship  an  unjust,  malignant  Being,  can- 
not surely  be  admitted  as  proof,  in  opposition  to  the 
most  sober  declaration  on  our  part,  that  we  ascribe  to 
God  infinite  justice  and  benevolence.  But  there  can  be  no 


136 

occasion  to  enlarge  on  this  topic,  after  what  I  have  writ- 
ten, in  Letter  III.  To  that  I  refer  you.  And  if  you  have 
carefully  attended  to  the  views  there  expressed,  of  the 
character  of  Jehovah,  and  can  have  confidence  enough 
in  me  to  believe,  that  they  are  indeed  the  views,  which 
I  and  my  brethren  entertain  ;  I  will  add  nothing,  but  an 
appeal  to  your  judgment,  whether  the  worship  of  such 
a  God  can  be  otherwise  than  salutary  to  the  cause  of 
virtue  ? 

Secondly.  A  scheme  of  religion,  in  order  to  have  a 
good  moral  influence,  must  exhibit,  a  moral  government, 
marked  with  holiness  and  righteousness  throughout.  There 
must  be  a  holy  and  benevolent  Sovereign,  who,  by  a 
system  of  wise  and  good  laws,  requires  of  his  subjects 
that  conduct,  which  is  necessary  to  the  order  and 
happiness  of  his  kingdom.  In  his  administration,  he 
must  show  a  constant  regard  to  the  principles  of  his  gov- 
ernment, and  an  invariable  determination  to  give  them 
support  and  efficiency.  The  authority  of  the  law,  and 
the  character  of  holiness  and  justice  in  the  Lawgiver  must 
be  sustained,  by  the  influence  of  a  penalty; — a  penalty, 
the  execution  of  which  shall  spread  an  impression  of  awe 
through  the  universe,  at  the  sight  of  God's  high  displeas- 
ure against  sin.  Now  does  not  the  system  of  religion, 
which  the  Orthodox  maintain,  exhibit  a  moral  govern- 
ment possessing  all  these  properties  ?  Does  it  not  con- 
stantly hold  up  to  view,  a  Supreme  Ruler,  perfectly  ho- 
ly and  benevolent  ?  Does  it  not  inculcate  upon  all  men, 
a  wise  and  holy  law,  in  all  its  extent,  as  of  immutable  ob- 
ligation ?  Does  it  not  constantly  teach,  that  the  Governor 
of  the  world  loves  holiness,  and  abhors  sin,  and  that  he 
manifests  an  invariable  determination  to  support  the  prin- 
ciples of  a  righteous  moral  government  ?  Does  it 
not  exhibit  with  tremendous  force,  the  sanctions  of  the 


137 

law, — that  is,  the  everlasting  happiness  of  the  obedient, 
and  the  everlasting  punishment  of  transgressors  ?  Is  not 
the  penalty  of  the  law,  as  we  represent  it,  awful  in  the 
highest  degree,  and  so  fitted,  as  far  as  any  thing  of  the 
nature  of  penalty  can  be,  to  prevent  transgression?  So  far 
as  men  are  to  be  influenced  by  fear,  will  they  not  be 
prompted  to  a  Careful  obedience,  according  to  their  im- 
pression of  the  certainty  and  the  greatness  of  the  e\il, 
which  will  be  consequent  upon  sin?  In  this  respect,  has  not 
the  Orthodox  system  most  obviously  the  advantage  over 
its  opposite  ?  Have  we  not  always  been  reproached  by 
those,  who  would  gladly  lower  down  or  disannul  the  sanc- 
tions of  the  law,  for  displaying  in  too  strong  colors  the  cer- 
tainty and  the  dreadfulness  of  future  punishment  ?  And 
is  it  not  true,  that  those,  who  soberly  admit  the  views, 
which  we  give,  of  the  displeasure  of  God  against  sin, 
and  the  punishment  with  which  he  will  recompense  it, 
find  it  more  difficult,  than  others,  to  keep  their  minds  in  a 
state  of  inconsideration,  and  sinful  repose? — I  am  wil- 
ling to  make  the  appeal  to  all  attentive  observers,  whe- 
ther there  is  not,  in  fact,  the  greatest  and  most  sensible 
repugnancy  between  a  life  of  ungodliness,  and  the  rep- 
resentation we  make  of  the  divine  government  ?  And, 
in  truth,  does  not  this  fact  account  for  much  of  the  op- 
position, which  our  views  of  religion  ha\e  always  had 
to  encounter  among  men,  who  are  too  proud  to  bear  re- 
proof, too  fond  of  quiet,  to  submit  willingly  to  what 
would  disturb  and  alarm  them,  and  too  earthly,  to  yield 
to  the  attractions  of  a  devout  and  spiritual  life? 

That  the  interests  of  virtue  may  be  secure,  the  ex- 
ercise of  mercy  towards  offenders,  whenever  it  takes  place, 
must  be  so  regulated,  that  the  divine  law  shall  be  mag- 
nified, and  its  sanctions  exercise  all  their  power  over  the 
18 


138 

consciences  and  hearts  of  men.  This  is  one  of  the  grand 
points  in  the  Orthodox  system.  I  shall  not  now  enter 
on  the  particulars,  which  make  up  the  system  in  this  re- 
spect, but  shall  merely  state,  what  we  conceive  to  be 
fairly  its  practical  result,  and  on  account  of  which,  more 
than  for  any  other  reason,  we  feel  so  much  interest  in 
its  support. 

According  to  our  views  of  the  intervention  of  Christ, 
the  salvation  of  sinners  reflects  no  dishonor  upon  the 
character  of  God,  as  a  moral  Governor.  He  appears  to 
his  subjects,  as  just  and  true,  and  awakens  as  deep  an 
awe  in  their  minds,  when  he  forgives,  as  when  he 
■punishes.  In  consequence  of  this,  God's  rational  crea- 
tures find  in  his  administration  as  powerful  motives  to 
deter  them  from  transgression,  and  induce  them  to  obe- 
dience, as  if  they  saw  in  fact,  that  the  penalty  of  the 
law  was,  in  all  its  dreadfulness,  inflicted  upon  every 
transgressor.  So  that,  while  rebels  against  God  are 
pardoned,  his  law  loses  none  of  its  authority  or  influence  ; 
the  interests  of  virtue  are  not  sacrificed ;  and  the  glory 
of  justice  and  truth  is  in  no  degree  tarnished.  Nay, 
all  the  attributes  of  God  acquire  the  lustre  of  a  higher 
display,  and  all  the  principles  of  his  benevolent  and 
righteous  government,  a  more  powerful  ascendency. 
Accordingly,  those  who  are  placed  under  this  dispen- 
sation of  mercy,  are  moved  to  repentance  and  obedi- 
ence by  the  high  authority  of  a  perfect  moral  govern- 
ment, and  by  all  the  attractions  of  infinite  compassion 
and  grace.  Thus  our  system  of  religion,  in  regard  to 
the  work  of  redemption,  is  calculated,  in  our  view,  to 
promote  the  cause  of  holiness  in  the  highest  degree.  It 
is  stamped  with  perfect  holiness  throughout.  It  exhib- 
its a  holy  God,  who  is  constantly  engaged  in  administer- 
ing a  holy  government.     It  proclaims  a   pure   and  holy 


139 

law,  and  enforces  it  with  the  most  weighty  sanctions. 
It  brings  to  our  view  a  holy  Redeemer,  who  gave  a  per- 
fect vindication  and  support  to  that  law.  It  presents  a 
holy  salvation,  to  be  obtained  through  the.  influence  of  a 
holy  Intercessor,  and  by  the  persevering  efforts  of  a  holy 
faith.  Every  thing,  with  which  we  have  to  do  in  this 
great  concern,  bears  the  stamp  of  holiness,  and  tends 
to  promote  holiness  in  us. 

Now  tell  me  candidly,  my  respected  friends,  wheth- 
er the  system  of  Orthodoxy,  some  features  of  which 
have  now  been  portrayed,  is  not  of  as  holy  a  nature,  and 
of  as  purifying  a  tendency,  as  the  system  which  Unitari- 
ans adopt  ?  Do  we  not  exhibit  as  holy  a  God,  as  right- 
eous a  law,  and  as  high  sanctions  to  enforce  it,  as  they 
do  ?  Is  not  the  tribunal  to  which  we  point  men,  as  just, 
and  the  sentence,  of  which  we  forewarn  them,  as  mo- 
mentous and  decisive,  as  that  which  Unitarians  teach  us 
to  expect  ?  Do  we  not  hold  forth  a  blessedness  of  as 
great  worth,  and  a  punishment  as  dreadful,  as  they  ? 

In  regard  to  the  work  of  redemption ;  does  not  our 
sscheme  present  as  complete  a  vindication  of  the  violated 
law  and  government  of  God,  as  theirs  ?  Does  it  not  show 
as  much  regard  to  the  interests  of  virtue  ?  Does  it  not 
demand  holiness  with  as  commanding  an  authority,  and 
allure  men  to  it  by  as  melting  a  display  of  kindness  ? 
Does  it  not  present  as  many  and  as  bright  examples  of 
moral  excellence,  divine  and  human?  What  then  is 
wanting  to  give  the  religious  system,  which  we  embrace, 
the  most  salutary  influence  upon  the  character  and  con- 
duct of  men  ? 

As  to  practical  influence,  any  religious  system  is,  in 
reality,  what  it  is  to  those  who  cordially  embrace  it, 
not  what  it  is,  or  what  it  appears  to  be,  to  those  who  re- 
ject it.  I  doubt  not,  that  a  trial  of  the  Orthodox  system  by 


140 

this  rule,  would  end  in  its  favor.  Enlightened  Christians, 
who  seriously  believe  this  system,  do,  if  I  mistake  not. 
find  in  it  motives,  in  great  variety,  and  of  powerful  effi- 
cacy, to  universal  holiness. — I  should  however  feel  a 
strong  reluctance,  in  reasoning  on  this  subject,  to  do  what 
some  writers  have  done  ;  that  is,  to  institute  a  compari- 
son between  the  Orthodox  and  Unitarians,  in  respect  of 
character.  For  although  Orthodox  believers  have,  in 
different  periods,  especially  in  these  last  days,  achieved 
much  for  the  welfare  of  man,  and  have,  in  many  instan- 
ces, exhibited  an  elevation  of  christian  virtue,  which  has 
been  an  honor  to  the  grace  of  God  ;  instances  enough  of 
a  contrary  character  occur,  to  make  us  blush  ;  and  even 
those,  who  have  reached  the  highest  point  of  goodness, 
have  fallen  far  short  of  the  attainments  they  ought  to 
have  made,  under  the  influence  of  such  powerful  motives. 
Instead,  therefore,  of  making  any  boasting  comparisons,  I 
would  join  with  those  who  are  humble  and  contrite  in 
heart,  in  the  deepest  lamentations  over  that  astonishing 
perverseness,  which  counteracts  the  influence  of  the  most 
holy  motives, — over  that  obstinate  disease  of  our  nature, 
which  renders  the  best  means  of  cure  in  so  great  a  meas- 
ure ineffectual. 

But  the  fact,  that  the  remedies,  which  physicians 
apply  to  the  sick,  are  not  always,  and  in  the  highest  de- 
gree, efficacious,  does  not  prove,  that  their  tendency  is  not 
salutary,  or  that  there  is  anv  thing  more  salutary. 

In  the  case  now  under  consideration,  notwithstand- 
ing all  the  instances,  in  which  the  system  of  the  Ortho- 
dox has  failed  of  producing  a  salutary  effect,  we  are  still 
carefully  to  inquire  into  the  practical  tendency  of  the  sys- 
tem, or  the  moral  influence  which  it  is  suited  to  have,  and 
in  this  respect,  to  compare  it  with  the  opposite  sys- 
tem, 


141 

1  shall  proceed  therefore,  to  the  second  thing  pro- 
posed,—viz.,  to  advert  to  particular  parts  of  Christian 
virtue,  and  duty,  and  to  inquire  what  influence  the  Or- 
thodox system  is  likely  to  have  upon  them. 

1.  Love  to  God.  The  more  exalted  our  conceptions 
of  his  natural  and  moral  attributes,  the  more  likely  are 
we,  other  things  being  equal,  to  abound  in  love.  Cer- 
tainly, clear  and  elevated  apprehensions  of  his  glorious 
character  have  a  stronger  tendency  to  excite  love,  than 
those  which  are  low  and  obscure.  Now  it  is  as  evident 
to  me,  as  the  light  of  noon,  that  the  system  of  Ortho- 
doxy clearly  exhibits  the  perfections  of  God,  and  invests 
them  with  the  highest  glory.  It  teaches  us  to  acknowl- 
edge his  infallible  wisdom,  and  his  unlimited  benevolence 
in  all  his  works.  In  view  of  all  the  evils,  which  fall  to 
our  lot,  or  to  the  lot  of  others,  it  teaches  us  not  only  to 
submit  to  his  sovereign  power,  but  to  admire  his  pater- 
nal goodness.  Those  very  measures  of  government, 
which  our  opponents  think  irreconcileable  with  his  mo- 
ral perfection,  appear  to  us  bright  illustrations  of  it.  In 
every  point  of  view,  the  faith  we  embrace,  is  suited  to 
excite  love  to  God,  and  to  give  to  that  love  the  charac- 
ter of  constancy  and  ardor. 

2.  Gratitude  to  God.  In  proportion  to  the  impres- 
sion we  have  of  his  kindness  to  us,  will  this  affection  be 
excited.  If  we  believe  that  God,  from  the  impulse  of 
his  own  compassion,  has  bestowed  upon  us  a  favor  of  in- 
finite value,  and  wholly  undeserved ;  we  shall  feel  a 
stronger  motive  to  gratitude,  than  if  we  consider  the  fa- 
vor bestowed,  of  inferior  value,  or  suppose  that  Ave  have 
any  personal  claim  to  it.  According  to  this  principle, 
those  views  of  redemption,  which  we  have  been  taught 
to  consider,  as   the  dictates  of  Scripture,   are  fitted  to 


142 

raise  gratitude  to  the  highest  pitch.  We  look  upon  our- 
selves to  be  in  such  a  state,  in  consequence  of  our  apos- 
tacy  from  God,  that  it  is  the  greatest  achievement  of 
infinite  benevolence,  to  save  us.  We  see  from  what  an 
abyss  of  guilt  and  wretchedness  God  delivers,  and  what 
an  exceeding  great  and  eternal  weight  of  glory  he  be- 
stows. And  we  see  that  this  deliverance  from  guilt  and 
wretchedness,  and  this  eternal  glory  were  purchased  by 
the  precious  blood  of  Christ.  With  these  views,  we  are 
constrained  to  anticipate  that  song,  which  is  prompted 
by  the  gratitude  of  saints  in  heaven;  "  Unto  him  that 
loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood, 
— to  him  be  glory  and  dominion  forever  and  ever." 
With  respect  to  gratitude,  it  is  perfectly  easy  to 
make  a  comparison  between  the  influence  of  our  system. 
and  that  of  our  opponents.  Unitarians  may  gratefully 
acknowledge  the  goodness  of  their  Creator  in  forming 
and  upholding  them,  and  in  the  common  bounties,  with 
which  his  providence  blesses  them.  They  may  admire 
his  benevolence  too,  in  providing,  as  they  conceive  he 
has  done,  for  their  happiness  in  a  future  state.  And 
they  may  set  a  high  price  upon  the  various  means  of 
moral  improvement,  which  they  enjoy.  But  their  sys- 
tem does  not  tend  like  ours,  to  excite  those  high  and 
tender  emotions  of  gratitude,  which  spring  from  a  con- 
sciousness of  deep  criminality  and  un  worthiness.  It  is  easy 
to  compare  the  sensations  of  a  man,  who  has  been  res- 
cued from  the  danger  of  perishing  in  the  ocean,  by  some 
heroic  effort  of  benevolence,with  the  sensations,which  are 
produced  by  the  common  acts  of  kindness.  It  is  easy  to 
conceive  too,  how  those  sensations  of  the  drowning  man 
would  be  heightened,  if  his  deliverance  was  effected  by 
the  disinterested  kindness  of  one,  whom  he  had  often 


143 

wounded  by  injuries,  and  especially,  if  the  danger,  from 
which  he  was  rescued,  was  the  immediate  consequence 
of  an  act  of  unprovoked  hostility.  Such  a  generous  ef- 
fort of  compassion,  heightened  too  by  circumstances  like 
these,  would  do  all  that  an  act  of  human  kindness  could 
do,  to  turn  a  heart  of  stone  into  a  heart  of  flesh,  to  call 
forth  all  the  tenderness  of  gratitude,  and  to  fix  a  sense 
of  obligation,  never  to  be  obliterated. 

The  principle  of  this  comparison,  with  respect  to  the 
excitement  of  gratitude,  is  inseparable  from  our  nature ; 
and  the  result  of  the  comparison  will  show,  that  the  re- 
ligious sentiments,  which  we  entertain,  are  adapted  not 
only  to  produce  gratitude,  but  to  give  it  the  greatest  de- 
gree of  strength  and  tenderness,  of  which  the  human 
mind  is  capable.  According  to  our  scheme  of  faith,  we 
are  sinners  without  excuse.  We  have  lifted  up  our  hand 
against  our  Maker,  and  in  instances  too  many  to  be  num- 
bered, proved  ourselves  his  enemies.  In  consequence 
of  this,  we  have  brought  ourselves  upon  the  brink  of 
hopeless  destruction.  Our  Father  in  heaven  has  inter- 
posed, and  by  an  act  of  love,  unparalleled  in  strength  and 
purity,  and  at  an  expense,  which  the  creation  could  not 
pay,  has  delivered  us  from  that  hopeless  destruction,  and 
given  us  an  inheritance  in  the  heavens.  Compared  with 
this  act  of  divine  love,  the  noblest  exploits  of  benevo* 
lence,  ever  performed  by  man,  lose  all  their  splendor, 
and  all  their  power  to  move  the  heart.  The  kindness 
and  grace  of  God,  exercised  towards  us  in  this  glorious 
work,  will  create  a  holy  gratitude,  which  will  swell  the 
hearts  of  the  redeemed  forever,  and  transfuse  a  celestial 
ardor,  inexpressibly  delightful  and  pure,  into  their  ever- 
lasting songs.  Nor  are  those,  who  cordially  yield  them- 
selves up  to  the  influence  of  these   views,   strangers  to 


144 

this  holy  affection,  even  now.  It  often  glows  in  the 
heart  of  the  young  disciple  of  Christ.  It  often  cheers 
the  spirits  of  Christians,  in  every  stage  of  their  progress 
towards  heaven,  and  prompts  them  to  bless  God 
for  his  goodness,  even  in  affliction.  It  kindles  a  celes- 
tial light  in  their  souls  on  the  bed  of  languishing  ;  and  in 
the  hour  of  death,  it  awakens  in  them  sensibilities,  which, 
amid  the  weakness  and  agonies  of  dissolving  nature,  strug- 
gle to  utter  themselves  in,  "  thanks  to  God  for  his  un- 
speakable gift." 

3.  Love  to  Christ.  The  bare  mention  of  this  virtue 
will  lead  at  once  to  the  obvious  result  of  the  comparison, 
which  I  have  instituted  between  the  two  systems.  For 
surely  that  system  must  be  admitted  to  have  the  strong- 
est tendency  to  excite  love  to  Christ,  which  ascribes  to 
him  the  highest  excellence  of  character.  The  different 
systems  of  Unitarians  ascribe  to  him  various  degrees  of 
created  and  limited  excellence.  The  Orthodox  system 
clothes  him  with  eternal  and  infinite  excellence.  Those 
who  embrace  this  system,  feel  it  to  be  their  duty  and 
privilege,  to  love  Christ  with  the  most  exalted  affection, 
— an  affection  without  any  limits,  except  those  which 
arise  from  the  finiteness  of  their  capacities.  But  Unita- 
rianism,  in  every  form,  forbids  this  high  and  unlimited 
affection  to  Christ.  It  tells  us  we  are  in  danger  of 
overrating  his  character.  It  begets  a  fear  of  regarding 
him  with  too  high  a  veneration.  When  we  have  hearts, 
which  wish  to  express  their  sacred  ardor  in  the  adoring 
language  of  Thomas,  "  my  Lord  and  my  God  ;"  it  thrusts 
itself  before  us,  and  tells  us  to  forbear.  Whereas  the 
system  of  Orthodoxy  calls  us  to  raise  our  love  to  Christ 
to  a  higher  and  higher  degree.  It  tells  us  he  has  an 
excellence  and  glory,  which  our  affection  can  never  reach. 
It  makes  our  blessedness  in  a   future   world   to  consist 


145 

very  much  in  clearer  discoveries  of  his  divine  perfections, 
and  in  exercising  towards  him  a  more  exalted,  more  un- 
interrupted love. 

4.  Faith  in  Christ.  The  same  general  remarks  ap- 
ply to  this  point,  as  to  the  last.  Believing  or  trusting  in 
the  Savior  is  represented,  as  one  of  the  grand,  compre- 
hensive duties  of  the  Christian  religion.  But  surely  that 
faith  or  trust  in  Christ,  which  results  from  the  princi- 
ples of  our  opponents,  must  be  a  very  different  thing, 
from  that  which  our  system  inculcates.  Under  the  in- 
fluence of  the  doctrines  which  we  believe,  we  repose  a 
confidence  in  his  atoning  blood,  which  relieves  us  from 
the  agitations  of  guilt,  and  inspires  us  with  humble,  joy- 
ful hope  ;  a  confidence  in  his  power,  and  wisdom,  and 
goodness,  which  puts  our  hearts  at  rest  respecting  the 
most  important  concerns  of  the  creation.  Our  own  in- 
terests, temporal  and  eternal,  we  commit,  cheerfully  and 
entirely,  to  his  care.  We  trust  in  him  for  all  that  is 
necessary  to  purify  our  hearts,  to  guide  and  protect  us 
during  our  pilgrimage,  to  comfort  us  in  affliction,  and  to 
give  us  peace  and  triumph  in  the  prospect  of  death. 
And  when  the  time  of  our  departure  draws  near,  we 
hope  to  look  up  to  our  merciful,  condescending  Redeem- 
er, and,  with  that  confidence  in  his  infinite  grace,  which 
quells  every  fear,  to  say,  "  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  Spirit." 
— Does  the  Unitarian  system  teach  any  thing  like  this  ? 
Does  such  a  faith  spring  from  the  principles,  which  it 
inculcates? 

5.  Dread  of  sin,  and  watchful  care   to  obey  the  divine 
precepts. 

The  importance  of  the  doctrine  of  rewards  and  pun- 
ishments is  insisted   on  by  Unitarians,  as  well  as  by  the 
Orthodox.     The  question  is,  does  their  scheme,  or  ours, 
exhibit  the  doctrine  in  the  form  best  adapted  to  impress 
19 


146 

men  with  a  dread  of  sin,  and  excite  them  to  obey  the 
divine  precepts  ?  Now  I  think  it  must  be  obvious  to 
those,  who  are  acquainted  with  the  most  respectable  au- 
thors on  both  sides,  that  the  heaven  which  we  are  taught 
by  our  system  to  contemplate,  is  a  state  of  higher  per- 
fection, and  of  purer  and  more  elevated  enjoyment,  than 
that,  which  our  opponents  describe.  Unitarian  authors 
represent  the  future  condition  of  Christians,  as  being  much 
less  removed  from  their  present  condition,  than  what  we 
suppose  to  be  fact.  Accordingly  they  look  upon  us,  in 
relation  to  this  subject,  as  overstepping  the  bounds  of 
sober  truth,  and  attempting  to  set  off  the  joys  of  heaven 
with  too  high  colors.  Read  what  they  have  written  on 
this  subject,  and  you  will  be  satisfied,  that  the  views 
they  exhibit  of  the  heavenly  felicity,  are  less  adapted  to 
excite  a  deep  interest  in  the  mind  of  man,  and  less  adapt- 
ed to  sway  his  active  powers,  than  those  which  are  ex- 
hibited by  the  best  writers  on  the  other  side.  If  this 
is  in  fact  so,  then,  whatever  may  be  said  as  to  reason 
and  argument  in  the  case,  the  Orthodox  system  has  cer- 
tainly the  advantage,  as  to  moral  influence.  For  the  con- 
templation of  a  future  reward,  to  be  obtained  by  virtu- 
ous efforts,  must  evidently  tend  to  excite  those  efforts, 
very  much  in  proportion  to  the  greatness  and  excel- 
lence of  that  reward. 

If  any  hesitate  to  admit  what  I  have  advanced  on 
this  part  of  the  subject,  I  will  not  stop  to  contest  the 
point,  but  pass  to  the  consideration  of future  punishment* 
on  which  our  reasoning  can  be  attended  with  no  difficulty. 
Here  my  first  inquiry  is, — does  the  threat  of  punishment 
tend  to  deter  men  from  sin  ?  Is  the  penalty  of  any  law,  di- 
vine or  human,  fitted  to  have  an  influence  to  prevent 
transgression?  If  so,  it  must  be  by  moving  the  passion  of 
fear.     The  evil  threatened  is  addressed  to  this  passion. 


147 

and  can  produce  an  effect  upon  no  other  principle  of 
action.  The  next  question  is,  whether  the  prospect  of 
an  evil,  that  is  great  and  insupportable,  has  a  tendency 
to  excite  a  stronger  sensation  of  fear,  than  the  prospect 
of  an  evil,  comparatively  small  and  easily  endured?  I 
appeal  to  common  sense.  I  appeal  to  common  practice. 
When  legislators  find,  that  the  penalty  of  any  law  does 
not  work  upon  the  fears  of  men  powerfully  enough 
to  prevent  the  commission  of  crimes,  they  increase 
its  severity.  And  this  they  do  upon  the  general 
principle,  that  the  penalty  of  a  law  will  be  likely  to 
awaken  the  fears  of  men,  and  influence  their  conduct, 
other  things  being  equal,  very  much  in  proportion  to  the 
greatness  of  the  evil,  involved  in  that  penalty.  Upon 
this  obvious  principle,  I  wish  you  to  examine  the  practi- 
cal tendency  of  our  doctrine  respecting  future  pun- 
ishment. We  believe  that  the  future  punishment  of  the 
wicked  will  be  inexpressibly  great,  and  will  endure  forever. 
We  bring  that  great  and  endless  punishment  into  view, 
in  order  to  illustrate  the  evil  of  sin,  and  the  displeasure 
of  God  against  it.  We  believe  that  such  a  punishment 
is  just;  that  it  is  no  more  than  commensurate  with  the 
illdesert  of  sin  ;  and  that  it  shows  no  more,  displeasure 
against  sin,  than  is  necessarily  prompted  by  the  perfect 
love  which  the  King  Eternal  feels  for  the  welfare  of  his 
kingdom.  Now  will  not  any  man  be  powerfully  held 
back  from  the  commission  of  sin,  by  the  serious  appre- 
hension, that  it  is  a  great  evil,  that  God  is  greatly  dis- 
pleased with  it,  that  it  tends  to  produce  extensive  injury 
to  the  creation,  and  that  it  will  be  followed  with  inexpres- 
sible and  hopeless  misery  ?  If  you  would  weaken  the 
power,  which  hinders  a  man  from  sin,  weaken  his  appre- 
hension of  the  greatness  of  the  evil  of  it  ;  weaken  his  ap- 
prehension of  the  displeasure  of  God  against  it,  and  of 


148 

the  dreadfulness  and  the  duration  of  the  misery  to  which 
it  will  lead.  Now  is  not  this  what  the  system  of  Unita- 
rians actually  does,  so  far  as  it  opposes  the  views  of  the 
Orthodox  respecting  future  punishment  ?  I  have  noth- 
ing to  say  here,  as  to  the  arguments  used  on  one  side  or 
the  other.  I  speak  simply,  as  to  practical  tendency. 
And  I  am  not  anxious  what  conclusions  any  man  will 
adopt,  who  will  allow  himself,  on  rational  principles,  so- 
berly to  investigate  the  two  systems  under  consideration. 

I  might  say,  were  it  necessary,  that  the  powerful  in- 
fluence of  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment,  as  we  hold 
it,  is  illustrated  by  numberless  facts.  Men  strongly  in- 
clined or  tempted  to  sin,  have  been  deterred  from  the 
commission  of  it,  by  the  fear  of  endless  punishment.  By 
the  same  fear,  many  have  been  roused  from  spiritual 
lethargy,  and  excited  to  make  that  most  important  in- 
quiry, "  what  shall  we  do  to  be  saved  ?"  How  many 
have  been  excited  by  this  doctrine,  to  such  reflections 
as  these  ; — "  is  that  sin,  which  I  indulge  in  my  heart,  so 
great  an  evil  in  the  sight  of  a  just  and  benevolent  God, 
that  he  has  threatened  everlasting  punishment,  as  its  re- 
compense ?  Ami,  while  impenitent,  exposed  to  that 
recompense  ?  And  shall  I,  by  the  momentary  pleasures  of 
sin,  bring  hopeless  ruin  upon  my  immortal  soul  ?" — Such 
reflections  as  these,  naturally  occasioned  by  the  doctrine 
of  endless  punishment,  have,  in  instances  too  many  to  be 
enumerated,  led,  through  the  mercy  of  God,  to  a  tho- 
rough reformation  of  character. 

6.  Reverence  for  the  word  of  God.  The  grand  maxim 
of  the  Polish  Socinians  was,  that  reason  is  our  ultimate 
rule  and  standard,  and  that  whatever  in  religion  is  not 
conformed  to  this,  is  to  be  rejected.  This  maxim,  as 
they  understood  it,  gave  them  perfect  liberty  to  alter 
or  set  aside  the  obvious  sense  of  the  Bible,  whenever  it 


149 

did  not  agree  with  the  deductions  of  reason.  Unitarians 
in  general  have,  with  more  or  less  decision,  adopted  the 
same  maxim.  I  do  not  say,  that  all,  who  are  called  Uni- 
tarians in  New  England,  treat  the  word  of  God  with 
the  same  irreverent  license,  which  some  English  and 
German  Unitarians  have  shown.  But  I  think  no  candid 
and  competent  judge  can  doubt,  that  the  general  aspect 
of  Unitarianism  does  less  honor  to  revelation,  than  the 
contrary  system.  Unitarianism  bows  with  less  veneration 
to  the  word  of  God,  and  receives  its  instructions  with  a 
less  implicit  confidence.  It  has  lower  views  of  the  na- 
ture and  degree  of  that  inspiration,  which  the  writers 
of  Scripture  enjoyed,  and  is  proportionally  less  inclined 
to  receive  their  word,  as  infallibe.  In  forming  our  opin- 
ions, we  inquire  simply,  ichat  saith  the  Scripture  ;  and 
what  was  the  sense,  which  the  inspired  writers  meant  to  con- 
vey? When  we  learn  this,  we  are  satisfied.  Our  rea- 
son receives  its  doctrines  from  the  word  of  God.  It  sees 
the  objects  of  religion,  not  in  its  own  light,  but  in  a  light 
borrowed  from  revelation.  As  soon  as  our  reason  dis- 
covers what  God  teaches,  we  suffer  it  to  go  no  farther. 
The  Bible,  we  believe,  contains  a  harmonious  system  of 
truth,  eternal  truth,  unmixed  with  error.  If  our  reason 
seems  to  see  inconsistencies,  we  charge  not  the  appear- 
ance of  those  inconsistencies  to  any  fault  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, but  to  the  weakness  and  obscurity  of  reason,  and 
we  have  no  doubt  it  will  entirely  vanish,  when  our  reason 
acquires  a  higher  degree  of  improvement.  I  must  re- 
fer it  to  the  christian  public  to  determine,  whether  Uni- 
tarianism teaches  its  disciples  to  treat  the  word  of  God 
with  this  kind  of  reverence  and  submission. 

Our  system  gives  us  liberty  to  pass  over  no  part  of 
Scripture,  as  unworthy  of  regard.  What  is  said  on  one 
part  of  a  subject,  we  charge  ourselves  to  receive  with  as 


150 

much  confidence,  as  what  is  said  on  another  part ;  and 
what  is  opposed  to  our  prepossessions,  as  readily,  as  what 
is  agreeable  to  them.  I  might  show  this  to  be  our  prac- 
tice, with  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the  mo- 
ral corruption  of  man,  the  divine  purposes,  and  the  di- 
vine agency.  But,  in  my  apprehension,  the  Unitarian 
theory  is  so  constructed,  as  to  set  aside  one  part  of  Scrip- 
ture entirely.  That  is  to  say,  the  faith  of  Unitarians, 
certainly  of  that  class  of  them,  who  believe  in  the  sim- 
ple humanity  of  Christ,  is  the  same,  as  it  would  be,  if 
those  texts,  which  ascribe  the  highest  perfections  to 
Christ,  were  expunged  from  the  Bible.  There  are  texts, 
which  assert  that  the  Word  was  God, — that  all  things 
were  made  by  him  and  for  him, — that  he  is  over  all, 
God  blessed  forever.  But  these  texts,  and  others  of 
similar  import,  make  no  alteration  in  the  faith  of  So- 
cinians.  Their  opinions  are  founded  on  other  represen- 
tations of  the  Scriptures  exclusively.  These  texts  have 
no  influence  at  all  upon  them.  The  Orthodox  have  a 
belief  in  the  inspiration  and  authority  of  the  Bible,  which 
prevents  them  from  treating  any  part  of  it  in  this  man- 
ner. If  the  Bible  teaches,  that  Christ  is  a  man,  they 
believe  he  is  a  man.  If  the  Bible  teaches,  that  he  is  di- 
vine, they  believe  he  is  divine.  If  it  teaches,  that  he 
created  all  things,  they  believe  it.  If  it  teaches,  that  he 
prayed  to  the  Father,  that  he  suffered,  and  died,  and 
rose  from  the  dead,  they  receive  all  this  as  a  matter  of 
fact.  So  of  the  rest.  Whatever  the  Bible  declares  re- 
specting Christ,  they  regard  as  infallible  truth.  They 
extend  the  limits  of  their  faith  far  enough  to  comprise 
all  parts  of  the  testimony  of  God.  They  do  not  come 
to  the  Bible  with  such  a  bias  of  mind,  that,  if  they  be- 
lieve Christ  to  be  man,  they  will  believe  this  only,  and 
whatever  the  Bible  may  say,  will  not  believe  that  he  k 


151 

also  God;  or  that,  if  they  believe  the  divine  unity, 
they  will  believe  this  only,  and  whatever  the  Bible 
may  say,  will  not  believe  a  divine  Trinity.  They 
have  such  liberality  of  faith,  that,  on  the  simple  au- 
thority of  God's  word,  they  will  believe  both.  I 
mention  this  merely  to  show,  that  their  system,  or 
their  habit  of  thinking,  leads  them  to  entertain  so  pro- 
found a  reverence  for  the  Bible,  that,  as  soon  as  they 
know  what  it  declares,  they  are  satisfied.  They  suffer 
not  their  reason  to  set  itself  up,  and  claim  authority,  as 
a  teacher,  or  guide  ;  but  require  it  to  submit  to  the  au- 
thority of  Revelation,  and  to  exercise  itself  only  to  re- 
ceive instruction  from  God,  with  the  humble  docility  of 
a  child.  Now  even  admitting,  that  the  system  of  the 
Orthodox  contains  a  mixture  of  error,  it  is  very  appar- 
ent, that  they  have  made  it  what  it  is,  from  sincere  rev- 
erence for  the  word  of  God.  The  high  authority  and  in- 
fallible truth  of  the  Scriptures,  is  the  principle,  which 
controls  their  reasoning:  and  their  faith. 

I  could  extend  these  remarks,  and  show,  that  on  the 
subject  of  man's  moral  depravity,  the  atonement,  regen- 
eration, and  other  controverted  points,  the  reasoning  of 
Unitarians  manifests  less  reverence  for  the  word  of  God, 
than  that  of  their  opponents.  I  could  illustrate  this,  as 
before,  by  the  simple  fact,  that  there  are  many  passa- 
ges of  the  Bible,  which  the  writers  seem  to  have  thought 
very  important,  which  yet  are  of  no  account  with  Unitari- 
ans, and  have  no  influence  whatever  upon  their  faith. 
It  would  be  easy  for  Unitarians  themselves,  by  a  little 
inquiry,  to  perceive,  that  their  faith  would  be  just  what 
it  now  is,  were  the  texts  referred  to,  erased  from  the 
sacred  pages.  All  the  effect,  produced  upon  their  minds 
by  any  one  of  those  texts,  is,  to  occasion  them  perplexi- 
ty and  trouble,  and  to  put  them  to  the  wearisome  labor  of 


152 

explaining  away  its  obvious  sense,  and  making  it  appear 
consistent  with  their  views. 

I  might  cite  many  observations  of  English  and  Ger- 
man Unitarians,  expressive  of  their  low  ideas  of  inspira- 
tion, and  their  want  of  reverence  for  the  word  of  God. 
But  I  intended  merely  to  direct  the  eye  of  the  reader  to 
what  seems  to  me  exceedingly  obvious,  and  lead  him  to 
inquire,  whether  the  general  aspect  of  the  system  em- 
braced by  Unitarians,  and  the  general  style  of  their  rea- 
soning on  religious  subjects,  is  not  indicative  of  less  rev- 
erence for  the  sacred  oracles,  than  what  is  manifested 
by  the  Orthodox.  But  whether  the  result  of  a  compar- 
ison be  or  be  not  the  same  in  their  minds,  as  it  is  in 
mine  ;  the  uniform  declarations  and  conduct  of  the  Or- 
thodox, and  the  general  character  of  their  writings,  will, 
I  hope,  leave  no  man  in  doubt,  as  to  the  reverence 
which  they  entertain  for  the  word  of  God,  or  as  to  the 
tendency  of  their  system  of  religion  to  promote  such 
reverence. 

7.  Let  us  finally  consider  the  subject,  in  relation  to 
benevolent  action,  particularly  that  highest  kind  of  it, 
which  is  directed  to  the  spread  of  the  gospel,  and  the  sal- 
vation of  men. 

The  views,  which  our  religious  system  exhibits  of 
the  eternal  love  of  God,  and  especially  of  the  condescen- 
sion and  grace  of  Jesus  Christ,  have  a  manifest  ten- 
dency to  beget  the  sincerest  and  most  active  kindness 
towards  mankind.  Under  the  influence  of  such  exam- 
ples of  goodness,  as  we  are  taught  to  contemplate  in  the 
providence  of  God,  and  in  the  life  of  Jesus,  we  cannot 
be  indifferent  to  the  wants,  or  the  sufferings  of  our  fel- 
low creatures. 

But  the  grand  influence  of  Orthodoxy  relates  direct- 
ly to  the  spiritual  and  eternal   condition  of  men.     We 


153 

believe, — and  it  is  a  distinguishing  mark  of  our  religion, — 
that  the  world  lieth  in  wickedness  ;  that  all  men  are  the 
subjects  of  a  total  alienation  of  heart  from  God,  and  just- 
ly exposed   to   everlasting   punishment.     This   view  of 
mankind,  especially  when  we  look  upon  ourselves  as  part- 
ners with  them  in  the  same  guilt  and  ruin,  must  produce 
the  tenderest  emotions  of  sympathy.     And  when  with  a 
temper  of  mind,  which  is  in  any  measure  what  it   ought 
to  be,  we  consider  their  moral  degradation   and   misery 
in  connexion  with  that  grace  of  God,  which  has  provid- 
ed salvation ;   how  deeply   must    we    be    affected;    and 
how  powerfully  must  we  be  stirred  up  to  benevolent  ex- 
ertion in  their  behalf.     Look  abroad  into  various  quar- 
ters of  the  world,  where  mankind  are  in  a  state  of  the 
profoundest  ignorance    and   wretchedness,  and   see  the 
efforts  which  are  made  for  their  reformation,  and  their 
happiness.     Then  look  into   Christian  nations,  and  see, 
who  are  the  most  active  in  promoting  these  benevolent 
efforts.     See  what  is  the  spring  of  all  these  remarkable 
movements,  which  really  present  the   only  prospect  we 
have,  of  the   salvation  of  the    world.     What  is  it  that 
rouses   the  exertions   of  those,    who  are    giving    their 
substance  or  offering   their   prayers,   or   of  those,  who 
are    exposing   themselves    to    hardships,    and    suffering 
and  death,  in  the  cause  of  human  happiness  ?     'Tis  sim- 
ply this.     They  see  that  the  children  of  men   have  de- 
stroyed themselves  ;  that  their  immortal  souls  are  ready 
to  perish.     This  touches  the   pity   of  their  hearts,  and 
kindles  all  the  fervor  of  benevolent  desire.     They  see 
that  a  Savior  is  provided,  and  that  self-ruined  sinners  may 
obtain  eternal  life.     This  awakens  their  hope,  their  zeal, 
and  their  efforts.     The  reason  they  have  to  expect,  that 
the  grace  of  God  will  abound  in  the  salvation  of  sinners, 
gives  them  alacrity  and  patience  in  their  labor?.    Ff  souls, 
20 


154 

precious  as  their  own,  and  equally  the  objects  of  the 
mercy  which  the  gospel  proffers,  may  obtain  the  salva- 
tion, which  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  with  eternal  glory  ;  they 
have  a  reward  like  that,  which  Jesus  himself  enjoys, 
when  he  sees  the  travail  of  his  soul,  and  is  satisfied.  I 
say  then,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  utter  ruin  of  man,  and 
of  the  grace  of  God  which  bringeth  salvation,  is  the  spring 
of  those  animated  exertions  for  the  good  of  the  world, 
which  mark  the  present  era. 

To  try  the  natural  tendency  of  the  doctrine  of  man's 
depravity,  and  his  redemption  by  Christ,  as  we  hold  it, 
I  will  suppose  the  following  case. — There  is  a  certain 
Unitarian,  who,  though  a  very  benevolent  man,  yet,  with 
his  present  views  of  religion,  makes  no  particular  exer- 
tions, by  the  contribution  of  money,  or  by  personal  labors, 
for  the  conversion  of  sinners,  either  at  home,  or  abroad. 
He  is  content  that  men' in  Christian  and  in  heathen  lands 
should  remain  as  they  are,  except  what  may  be  done 
for  them  by  the  gradual  progress  of  knowledge,  and  the 
arts  of  civilized  life.  But  this  same  Unitarian  alters  his 
religious  opinions,  and  becomes  well  satisfied,  that  man- 
kind are,  every  where,  in  that  very  state  of  moral  cor- 
ruption and  ruin,  which  the  Orthodox  system  asserts, 
and  that  just  such  a  salvation  is  provided,  and  may  be 
obtained  in  just  such  a  way,  as  that  system  teaches.  Of 
this  he  becomes  deeply  convinced.  What  will  be  the 
consequence  ?  Will  not  his  heart  be  touched  with  com- 
passion for  sinners  ?  Will  he  not  long  to  see  the  grace 
of  God  displayed  in  their  conversion?  Will  he  not  join 
himself  to  the  company  of  those,  who  are  laboring  and 
praying  and  giving  of  their  substance,  for  the  salvation  of 
those,  who  are  perishing?  Is  not  this  the  natural  con- 
sequence of  such  a  change  in  his  religious  views?  Do 
not  facts,  as  well  as  the  nature  of  the  case,  show  it  to  be 
so  ? 


155 

Now  invert  the  supposition. — A  man,  who  feelingly 
embraces  the  common  Orthodox  system,  and  who  is  led, 
by  his  views  of  the  ruined,  miserable  condition  of  the 
human  race,  to  unite  with  those,  who  show  the  highest 
degree  of  zeal  in  promoting  the  conversion  of  sinners  at 
home,  and  in  sending  the  gospel  to  the  heathen  ; — such 
a  man  changes  his  faith,  and  comes  to  entertain  the 
views  of  Unitarians,  respecting  the  state  and  the  pros- 
pects of  human  beings.  Is  not  his  zeal  for  the  conver- 
sion of  sinners,  and  for  evangelizing  the  heathen,  extin- 
guished ?  And  does  he  not  forsake  the  society  of  those, 
who  are  active  in  promoting  the  benevolent  enterprises 
of  this  auspicious  day  ?  Do  not  facts,  as  well  as  the  na- 
ture of  the  case,  show  this  to  be  the  natural  consequence 
of  such  a  change  in  his  opinions?— Unitarians,  as  it  seems 
to  me,  act  with  perfect  self-consistency  on  this  subject. 
Their  opinions  and  their  practice  correspond;  and  with 
the  sentiments  they  now  indulge  respecting  the  nature 
of  the  gospel,  and  the  character  and  condition  of  man, 
what  powerful  motives  can  they  have  to  labor,  or  make 
sacrifices  for  the  conversion  of  sinners  ?  Have  we  any 
reason  to  expect,  that  Unitarians  will  so  far  imitate  the  ho- 
ly Apostles,  as  to  become  preachers  of  the  gospel  among 
the  heathen,  and  to  be  willing  to  spend  and  be  spent,  to  suf- 
fer persecution,  and  to  die,  in  the  cause  of  human  salva- 
tion ?  Possibly  they  may  be  accessible  to  the  influence 
of  motives,  which  we  have  not  duly  considered.  If  we 
are  chargeable  with  a  mistake,  or  with  ignorance,  on 
this  subject,  or  if  we  indulge  views,  which  can  be  con» 
sidered,  as  in  any  measure  unjust  or  injurious,  we  must 
refer  to  the  writings  and  the  conduct  of  Unitarians,  as 
our  apology.  What  exertions  have  they  made  to  pro- 
mote the  spread  of  the  gospel  in  pagan  lands  ?  What 
heathen  tribes  or  nations  are  now  receiving  the  words  of 
eternal  life  from  their  missionaries,   or  experiencing,  in 


156 

other  ways,  the  salutary  effects  of  their  religious  chari- 
ties, and  their  prayers  ? — For  myself,  I  know  not  how 
it  is,  that  any,  who  have  a  heart  to  feel  for  the  woes,  or 
to  desire  the  eternal  happiness  of  man,  can  be  indiffer- 
ent to  the  benevolent  operations  of  this  day,  in  behalf  of 
those  who  are  destitute  of  the  gospel.  But  are  not  Uni- 
tarians, generally,  chargeable  with  this  indifference  ?  Are 
they  not  chargeable  with  more  than  indifference  ?  Instead 
of  uniting  with  the  multitude  of  good  men,  who  devote 
themselves  to  works  of  Christian  benevolence  ;  do  they 
not  look  with  pity  or  contempt,  upon  the  most  fervent 
prayers,  and  the  most  earnest,  faithful,  and  successful 
labors  of  the  church  of  Christ,  in  the  cause  of  human 
salvation  ?  And  is  not  all  this  a  dark  and  forbidding 
characteristic  of  their  system  ? 

The  views  I  have  expressed,  as  to  the  practical  ten- 
dency of  Orthodoxy  and  of  Unitarianism,  are  such,  I  ap- 
prehend, as  must  result  from  a  due  consideration  of  the 
character  of  these  two  systems. — I  am  aware  it  may  be 
difficult  for  those,  whose  minds  have  strong  preposses- 
sions against  Orthodoxy,  to  conceive  that  it  should  pro- 
duce such  effects,  as  I  have  ascribed  to  it.  But  certain- 
ly such  effects  do  naturally  result  from  it,  as  if  is  under- 
stood and  embraced  by  the  Orthodox.  Such  must  be 
my  apprehension,  till  some  one  shall  take  the  doctrines 
of  Orthodoxy,  just  as  we  hold  them,  not  as  represented 
by  our  opponents,  and  make  out,  by  fair  reasoning,  that 
they  have  an  opposite  tendency. 

I  intended  to  proceed  farther  under  this  general 
head,  and  to  consider  the  tendency  of  our  religious  sys- 
tem, compared  with  the  opposite  one,  to  promote  a  spir- 
it of  humility,  and  of  prayer.  But  it  will  be  perfectly 
easy  for  the  reader  to  apply  to  each  of  these  subjects 
the  principles,  which  have  been  applied  to  the  other 
subjects,  treated  in  this  Letter. 


197 

I  shall  now  finish  what  I  have  to  say  on  the  impor- 
tant subject  of  practical  influence,  by  one  remark;  name- 
ly ;    that  the  advantage,  which  the  Author  of  the  Ser- 
mon has,  in  setting  forth  the  practical  influence  of  Uni- 
tarianism,  is  derived,  almost  entirely,  from  those   views 
of  religion,  which  really  belong  to  the  Orthodox.  These, 
generally,  are  the  views,  which  he  makes  prominent  in 
his  Discourse,  and  by  which  he  gives  plausibility  to  his 
system.     I  leave  the  propriety  of  this  mode  of  treating 
the  subject,  to  the  consideration   of  others. — To  those 
of  my  readers,  who  understand  thoroughly  what    the 
Unitarian  scheme  is,  I   must  also  refer  the  decision  of 
another  question;  that  is;  whether  this  Author  has  not, 
in  some  instances,  been  silent  respecting  certain  opinions, 
which  are  common  among  Unitarians,  when  the  impor- 
tance of  those  opinions,  as  well  as  the  express  design  of 
his  Sermon,  required  him  to  speak  of  them  without  re- 
serve.    If,  on  every  important   topic,  he  has  been  per- 
fectly explicit  in  giving  kis  own  views  ;  it   must   be   that 
he  differs  very  widely  in  opinion  from  the  generality  of 
Unitarians.     And  if  so,  then  I  should  doubt,  whether 
some   man,    who    was    of   the   same    mind    with  them, 
might  not  have  been  more  properly  employed,  as  their 
agent  and  representative  before  the    public.      Though 
he  may  have  given  a  true  and  unreserved  account  of  his 
own  religious  faith,   I  cannot  think  he  has  given  a  just 
account  of  the  general   faith  of  those,  for  whom  he  un- 
dertakes to  speak.     Thus  in  my  apprehension,  he  fails 
essentially  as  to   both   systems.     As  to  Orthodoxy,  he 
does  not  show  a  feature  of  it  in  its  true  light.     What  he 
has  written  would  enable   no  man  on  earth  correctly  to 
understand  any  one  article  of  our  faith.      As  to  Unitari- 
anism, — I  think   he   has  as  really  failed  of  giving  a  just 
and  complete  account  of  it,  though  not  in  the  same  way, 
nor  in  an  equal  degree. 


158 

Although  I  have,  in  these  Letters,  spoken  frequently 
ef  the  injustice,  which  the  Orthodox  have  been  accus- 
tomed to  suffer  from  their  opposers,  I  would  not  have 
you  imagine  that  I  have  meant  to  complain  of  any  per- 
sonal injuries,  or  wished  to  excite  feelings  of  commisera- 
tion towards  the  Orthodox.  I  have  complained  of  injus- 
tice in  the  treatment,  which  our  religious  faith  has  re- 
ceived from  our  opponents,  because  it  tends  to  bar  their 
minds  and  the  minds  of  others,  against  the  most  salutary 
truths,  and  to  perpetuate  the  evils  of  controversy. 

I  am  conscious  of  no  disposition  and  of  no  tempta- 
tion, to  reproach  or  injure  those,  whom  I  have  here  ad- 
dressed.    On  the  contrary,  I  have  strong  inducements  to 
respect  and  honor  them, — especially  those  of  them,  who 
were  among  my  beloved  Instructors  and  fellow  students 
at  the  University,  and  many  others,  to  whom  I  have  par- 
ticular personal   attachments.     But  I  have   wished  to 
cherish  the   influence   of  still   higher  motives,   toward 
those,  from  whose  religious  opinions  I  dissent.     I  would 
regard  them,  as  fellow  creatures,  whom  God  requires 
me  to  love,  as  I  love  myself, — who  are  destined  to  the 
same  immortal  existence,  and  capable  of  the  same  im- 
mortal joys  with  myself, — who  are  to  appear,  a  few  days 
hence,  before  the  same  high  and  holy  tribunal,  and  whose 
final  sentence  is  to  come  from  the  lips  of  the  same  infal- 
lible Judge.    Under  the  influence  of  these  considerations, 
suffer  me  to  say,  I  have  found  it  easy,  not  only  to  guard 
my  mind  against  every  feeling  of  animosity,  but  to  exer- 
cise   love   and  tenderness.     In  executing   the   business, 
which  I  am  now  closing,  I  have  charged  myself,  first,  to  do 
as  much  as  possible,  to  promote  the  cause  of  Christ ;  and 
then,  as  little  as  possible,  to  inflict   a    wound  upon   the 
feelings  of  my  opponents.     Indeed  I  have   written  with 
the    desire   and  the  hope   of  contributing,   through  di- 
vine mercy,  to  their  eternal  welfare. — I  have  also  endeav- 


159 

ored  to  keep  in  mind,  that  the  feelings,  which  are  apt 
to  agitate  the  minds  of  contending  parties,  will  shortly 
vanish,  and  that  the  controversy,  which  has  made  its 
way  into  New  England,  and  the  conduct  of  all  those, 
who  take  a  part  in  it,  must  be  subjected  to  review,  be- 
fore Him,  who  cannot  err. 

And  now,  my  respected  friends,  I  desire  freely  and 
affectionately  to  inquire,  what  Unitarians  expect  to  gain, 
by  the  efforts  they  are  making  in  their  pamphlets,  peri- 
odical publications,  and  sermons,  to  disseminate  the  pe- 
culiarities of  their  religious  system  ?  Do  they  expect 
that  Unitarianism  will  have  a  more  powerful  influence 
to  promote  good  morals  in  society,  or  that  it  will  produce 
better  men,  or  better  civil  and  literary  institutions,  than 
that  religion,  which  brought  our  forefathers  to  New  Eng- 
land, and  which  has  given  to  all  our  institutions,  to  our 
ministers  and  churches,  to  our  rulers,  and  to  our  com- 
munity at  large,  a  character  of  preeminence,  which  has 
been  universally  seen  and  acknowledged  among  us  ?  As 
to  this  subject  of  practical  influence,  our  system  most 
evidently  possesses  every  thing  which  is  valuable  in  that 
of  Unitarians.  Whatever  motives  to  goodness  can  be 
drawn  from  the  "  paternal  character  of  God,"  or  from 
any  of  his  moral  attributes,  from  the  "  loveliness  and 
sublimity  of  virtue,"  from  the  example  of  Christ,  from  the 
precepts  of  the  Gospel,  or  from  the  doctrine  of  a  resur- 
rection, and  a  future  state  of  retribution  ;  our  system 
inculcates  them  at  least  as  forcibly,  and  turns  them  to 
as  good  account,  as  that  of  our  opponents.  And  our 
system  has  much  in  addition,  which  we  consider  of  infi- 
nite worth,  but  of  which  theirs  is  wholly  destitute.  I 
ask  then,  what  they  expect  to  gain  by  the  efforts  they 
are  making, — which  are,  in  reality,  efforts  to  diffuse  among 
men,  lower  conceptions  of  the  glory  of  Christ,  and  of  the 
honor  due  to  him  from  his  people, — lower  conceptions 


160 

of  the  disorder  of  the  human  mind,  and  of  the  evil  of 
sin, — lower  conceptions  of  the  value  of  Christ's  atone- 
ment, and  of  the  necessity  and  worth  of  divine  influence 
to  renew  men  to  holiness, — lower  conceptions  of  the 
recompense,  which  sinners  deserve,  and  of  the  obligations 
of  those  who  are  pardoned,  to  the  grace  of  God  ?  Let 
the  thing  be  varnished  over  ever  so  artfully,  this  is  the 
real  tendency  of  their  efforts.  And  what  good  to  them- 
selves or  to  others  do  they  expect  from  such  efforts? 
Why  should  they  wish  to  promote  a  system,  which 
lets  down  the  standard  of  Christianity,  so  that  it  meets, 
half  way  at  least,  the  wishes  of  the  irreligious  ; — a  sys- 
tem, which  does,  in  fact,  find  a  place  in  the  hearts  of 
those,  who  are  living  to  the  present  world,  without  giv- 
ing them  any  disquietude,  and  which  is  likely  to  be  em- 
braced by  thousands,  in  preference  to  the  opposite,  for 
the  very  reason,  that  it  relieves  them  from  being  dis- 
turbed by  the  warnings  of  conscience,  and  allows  them 
to  live  in  the  neglect  of  those  things  which  are  unseen 
and  eternal; — a  system,  which  never  can  coalesce  with 
the  feelings  of  those,  whose  hearts  are  warm  with  be- 
nevolence to  the  souls  of  men,  and  with  zeal  for  their 
conversion  ; — a  system,  which,  if  it  should  prevail,  would 
prevent  forever  the  pious  efforts,  which  our  blessed 
Lord  and  Redeemer  requires  his  followers  to  make,  to 
convey  the  gospel  of  peace  to  the  ends  of  the  world  ? 
This  general  aspect  of  Unitarianism  appears  very  por- 
tentous. It  excites  my  fears.  And  it  is  sufficient,  by  it- 
self, to  produce  in  my  mind  an  honest  and  serious  ap- 
prehension, that  whatever  plausible  arguments  may  be 
used  to  give  the  system  support  and  currency, — it  is 
indeed  another  gospel. 


* 


BVV9UB8 


ADDRESSED  TO 


TRINITARIANS  AND  CALVINISTS, 


OCCASIONED  BV 


DR.  WOODS'  LETTERS 

TO  UNITARIANS. 


BY  HENRY  WARE,  D.  D. 

Hollis  Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  Unirersity  at  Cambridge. 


SECOND  EDITION'. 


CAMBRIDGE  : 

PUBLISHED  BY  HILLIAB.D  AND  METCALF. 

Sold  also  by  Cuinmings  &  Hilliard,  Boston. 

J  8-20. 


DISTRICT  OF  MASSACHUSETTS,  TO  WIT  : 

District  Clerk's  Office. 

BE  it  remembered,  that  on  the  twenty-eighth  day  of  August,  A.  D.  1820,  and  in  the 
forty-fifth  year  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States  of  America,  Hilliard  &  Metealf 
of  the  said  district  have  deposited  in  this  office  the  title  of  a  book,  the  right  whereof  they 
claim  as  proprietors,  in  the  words  following,  viz. 

'■  Letters  addressed  to  Trinitarians  and  CaWinists,  occasioned  by  Dr.  Woods'  Letters  to 
Unitarians.  By  Henry  Ware,  D.  D.  Hollis  Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  University  at  Cam- 
bridge." 

In  conformity  to  the  Act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  entitled,  "An  Act  for  the 
encouragement  of  learning,  by  securing  the  copies  of  maps,  charts,  and  books,  to  the  authors 
and  proprietors  of  such  copies,  during  the  times  therein  mentioned ;"  and  a. so  to  an  Act, 
entitled,  "  An  Act  supplementary  to  an  Act,"  entitled,  "An  Act  for  the  encouragement  of 
learning,  by  securing  the  copies  of  maps,  charts,  and  books,  to  the  authors  and  proprietors  of 
such  copies  during-  the  times  therein  mentioned  ;  and  extending  the  benefits  thereof  to  the 
nrts  of  designing,  engraving  and  etching  historical  and  other  prints." 

J.    W.  DAVIS. 
Clerk  of  the  District  of  Massachusetts,, 


CONTENTS. 


LETTER  I.  p.  4—9. 

Occasion  of  the  following  letters. — Controversy  useful. — Im- 
portance of  the  points  at  issue. 

LETTER  II.  9—17. 

Propriety  of  a  creed. — Charges  of  misrepresentation  consider- 
ed, as  to  the  unity  of  God, — as  to  his  moral  perfection. 

LETTER  III.  17—53. 

Natural  character  of  man. — Doctrine  of  the  Orthodox  changed. 
— Imputation. — Total  depravity. — The  writer's  view  on  the 
subject. — Defence  of  it — from  observation  and  experience, 
— character  of  children, — scripture. — General  views  from 
scripture. — Particular  texts  from  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment considered. — Depravity  not  a  humbling  doctrine. 

LETTER  IV.  53—80. 

Election. — Alleged  misrepresentation  considered. — Westmin- 
ster Confession. — Dr.  Woods'  explanations, — inconsistent 
with  the  moral  character  of  God, — with  scripture. — General 
scope, — particular  texts  considered. — Reprobation. 

LETTER  V.  80—109. 

Atonement.— Alleged  misrepresentations. — Language  of  the  Or- 
thodox not  to  be  understood  literally. — Redemption. — Sac- 
rifice.— Atonement. — Two  natures  and  one  person  in  Christ. 
— Ground  of  forgiveness. — Value  of  good  works. — Salva- 
tion of  grace. 


IV 


LETTER  VI.  110—124. 


Divine  influence. — That  which  is  peculiar  to  Calvinism  to  be 
distinguished. — General  doctrine. — Indirect  influence  by 
instruments  and  means. — Irresistible  grace. — Objections. — 
Unitarian  views. 


LETTER  VII.  125—150. 

Tendency  and  moral  influence  of  Unitarian  and  of  Trinitarian 
views, — generally, — as  respects  piety  to  God, — regard  for 
Jesus  Christ, — reverence  for  the  Scriptures, — benevolent 
exertions, — spread  of  the  Gospel. — Motives  to  activity. — 
Conclusion. 


LETTERS 


ADDRESSED 


TO  TRINITARIANS  AND  CALVINISTS. 


LETTER  I. 

CHRISTIAN  BRETHREN, 

The  Letters  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Woods  to  Unita- 
rians, which  have  now  been  for  some  time  before 
the  public,  suggest  to  me  the  propriety  of  address- 
ing the  few  following  pages  on  the  same  subjects,  to 
Trinitarians  and  Calvinists.  I  feel  the  greater 
readiness  to  do  it,  and  enter  upon  the  task  the  more 
cheerfully,  as  the  discussion  of  the  interesting  sub- 
jects, about  which  they  are  concerned,  seems  to  be 
taking  a  character  of  moderation,  temperance,  and 
urbanity,  which  promises  a  favourable  result.  It 
assures  us,  that  the  great  end,  which,  on  each  side, 
we  propose  to  ourselves,  will  not  be  lost  sight  of 
in  the  ardour  of  debate,  and  the  desire  to  maintain 
subordinate  opinions,  in  which  we  differ  from  each 
other ;  and  that  we  are  not  going  to  sacrifice  the 
spirit  of  religion  to  any  of  its  forms,  or  its  dogmas. 
I  am  far  from  thinking  religious  controversy  to 
be  universally  an  evil.  It  becomes  so,  only  when  it 
is  improperly  conducted.  It  is  bad,  and  produces 
bad  effects,  only  when  the  discussion  of  interesting 
questions  of  faith  or  duty  is  carried  on  with  an  in- 
temperate spirit,  or  with  sophistrv  :  and  when  the 
1 


disputants,  ranged  on  each  side,  manifest  more  of  a 
spirit  of  party,  than  of  the  love  of  truth.  So  far 
indeed  is  the  public  discussion  of  those  questions, 
about  which  Christians  hold  different  opinions,  from 
being  a  thing,  that  should  be  discouraged  as  hurt- 
ful ;  that  we  ought  rather  to  rejoice  in  it,  as  an 
evidence  of  a  prevailing  interest  in  the  subject  of 
religion  in  general,  as  a  symptom  of  religious  life  in 
the  community,  and  as  a  means  of  preserving  that 
life,  of  awakening  a  deeper  interest,  of  turning  the 
public  attention  still  more  to  the  subject,  and  thus 
furnishing  opportunities  for  impressing  upon  the 
minds  of  men  a  sense,  which  they  might  otherwise 
not  have,  of  its  high  value  and  importance.  These 
desirable  effects  it  may  produce  m  a  considerable 
degree,  however  imperfectly  and  defectively  the 
controversy  may  be  conducted,  and  although  great 
faults  of  manner,  and  even  of  temper,  may  mingle 
themselves  in  the  debate.  But  if  there  be  a  rea 
sonable  degree  of  exemption  from  bad  passions, 
party  views,  the  arts  of  controversy,  and  offensive 
personality  ;  the  effect  of  bringing  the  subject  into 
view,  in  the  various  lights  in  which  it  may  be  pre- 
sented, can  hardly  fail  to  be  highly  favourable  to  the 
cause  of  Christian  truth. 

The  book,  which  has  given  occasion  to  the  present 
pamphlet,  and  upon  which  some  remarks  will  be 
made  in  the  course  of  the  discussions  which  follow, 
is  entitled  to  more  than  common  attention  on  sev- 
eral accounts.  The  subjects  of  which  it  treats  art 
in  themselves  highly  important ;  and  being  those,, 
about  which  the  Christian  community  is  at  the  pres- 


ent  time  much  divided,  they  have  excited  a  pecu- 
liar interest  of  late  by  being  brought  more  frequently 
than  common  before  the  public  mind.  It  comes 
from  a  gentleman  of  acknowledged  talents  and 
learning,  and  of  high  standing  among  his  brethren 
as  a  scholar  and  a  theologian.  It  professes  to 
speak  with  authority,  as  it  speaks  in  the  name  of 
that  part  of  the  Christian  community,  for  whom  it 
claims  the  very  honourable  distinction  of  "  the 
Orthodox  of  New  England,"  and  is  designed  to 
explain  and  defend  the  opinions,  by  which  they  are 
distinguished,  for  the  purpose  of  guarding  them 
against  misapprehension,  and  in  order  to  do  away 
the  effects  of  misrepresentation. 

The  writer  of  the  following  sheets  hopes  to  per- 
form the  duty  he  has  assigned  himself,  whatever 
may  be  its  defects  in  other  respects,  in  a  spirit, 
which  shall  not  be  liable  to  exception.  It  is  his 
design  to  make  such  remarks,  as  occur  to  him,  on 
the  opinions  and  reasonings  of  the  pamphlet  before 
him,  and  to  give  a  free  exposition  of  his  own  views 
upon  the  several  subjects  treated  of  by  Dr.  Woods, 
together  with  the  reasoning,  by  which  he  has  been 
led  into  those  views.  But  he  wishes  it  to  be  un- 
derstood, that  they  are  his  own  views  only.  He  is 
not  authorized,  nor  does  he  profess,  to  speak  in  the 
name  of  any  party  or  body  of  Christians.  How 
far  his  opinions  on  the  subjects  in  controversy,  and 
his  manner  of  explaining  and  defending  them,  may 
agree  with  those  of  his  friends,  he  knows  not.  He 
is  willing  to  avail  himself  of  this  opportunity  of  ap- 
pearing before  the  public  on  these  subjects,  believ- 


8 

ing  that  the  cause  of  Christian  truth  cannot  fail  of 
being  promoted  by  unreserved  freedom  in  the 
discussion  of  controverted  doctrines  ;  and  by  indi- 
viduals communicating  the  result  of  their  study  and 
thought,  without  any  reference  to  the  opinions  of 
the  party  or  sect,  to  which  they  may  be  considered 
in  general  as  belonging. 

With  respect  to  the  points  at  issue  between  those, 
who  are  called  Unitarians  on  the  one  hand,  and 
Trinitarians  and  Calvinists  on  the  other,  it  is  of 
some  importance  that  you  should  know  in  what 
light  they  are  viewed,  and  what  degree  of  impor- 
tance is  attached  to  them  by  Unitarians.  Upon 
this  subject,  there  is  probably  with  us,  as  with  you, 
some  diversity  of  opinion  ;  though  I  am  persuaded 
that  no  intelligent  Unitarian  can  think  them  unim- 
portant, and  practically  a  matter  of  indifference. 
It  cannot  be  imagined,  that  the  constitution  of 
things  is  such,  as  to  render  truth  and  error  on  any 
subject  perfectly  indifferent,  and  equally  salutary. 
And  it  is  believed,  as  I  shall  have  occasion  to  show 
in  the  sequel,  that  the  doctrines  for  which  we  con- 
tend, and  which  are  the  subject  of  controversy 
between  us,  are  calculated,  as  far  as  their  effects 
are  not  prevented,  nor  counteracted  by  other  causes, 
to  have  a  better  moral  influence  in  forming  the 
character,  than  the  opposite  doctrines ;  and  that 
their  reception  and  prevalence  cannot  fail  to  have 
great  influence  on  the  reception  and  spread  of 
Christianity  in  the  world.  At  the  same  time,  it  is 
not  maintained,  that  any  one  of  the  doctrines,  about 
which  we  differ,  is  fundamental  in  such  a  sense, 


that  the  opposite  is  incompatible  with  the  Christian 
character,  and  forfeits  the  Christian  name  for  him 
who  maintains  it.  It  is  not  doubted,  that  all  the 
best  influences  of  Christian  faith  may  be  felt,  and 
the  Christian  life  acted  out,  and  the  consolations 
and  hopes  of  the  Gospel  enjoyed  by  those,  whose 
speculative  opinions,  upon  each  of  the  several  points 
of  controversy,  which  lie  between  us,  are  in  opposi- 
tion to  each  other. 


LETTER  II. 

I  shall  confine  myself  to  a  few  passing  remarks 
on  what  is  contained  in  some  of  the  first  letters  of 
Dr.  Woods,  wishing  to  draw  your  attention  chiefly 
to  the  important  articles  of  doctrine,  which  are 
discussed  in  the  remaining  ones ;  since,  with  the 
exception  of  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  Unity,  they 
involve  the  most  interesting  questions,  that  lie  be- 
tween us  and  you. 

With  respect  to  what  is  implied  in  no  equivocal 
manner  in  the  beginning  of  the  second  letter,  I  would 
only  observe,  that  as  to  the  propriety  of  having  a 
creed,  no  doubt,  I  believe,  has  ever  been  enter- 
tained. Unitarians  have  always  claimed  the  right 
of  every  individual  to  have  his  own  particular  creed. 
What  they  have  sometimes  had  occasion  to  object 
to  is,  not  that  each  of  the  several  sects  and  denom- 
inations of  Christians  should  have  its  own  creed, 
nor,  that  any  individual  should  have  one  ;  but  that 


10 

any,  whether  an  individual  or  a  body  of  Christians, 
should  insist  upon  their  creed  being  the  creed  of 
others ;  either  as  a  title  to  the  Christian  name,  or 
as  a  condition  of  their  being  admitted  to  the  parti- 
cipation of  any  Christian  privileges. 

In  the  concluding  part  of  the  same  letter,  and  in 
the  two  following,  Dr.  Woods  proceeds  to  charge 
Mr.  Channing  with  a  gross  misrepresentation  of 
the  opinions  of  the  Orthodox  upon  two  points,  the 
Unity  of  God,  and  his  moral  perfection;  and  of 
injustice  in  claiming  these  as  distinguishing  articles 
of  the  Unitarian  Faith.  Now,  in  respect  to  the 
first  of  these,  the  Unity  of  God,  it  is  to  be  recol- 
lected, that  the  question  is  not,  whether  the  Unity 
of  God  be  asserted  by  Trinitarians.  This  is  not 
denied  them  ;  but  the  true  question  is,  whether 
opinions  are  or  are  not  held  by  them  in  relation  to 
this  subject,  which  cannot  be  reconciled  with  .the 
divine  Unity.  It  is  with  this,  and  not  with  the 
other,  that  they  are  charged  by  Unitarians.  Full 
credit  is  given  to  their  word,  when  they  declare 
their  belief  in  the  Unity  of  God,  and  when  they  tell 
us  "  it  is  asserted  in  all  their  systems  of  Divinity, 
and  all  their  Confessions  of  Faith."  Nor  is  there 
any  thing  that  I  can  perceive  in  Mr.  Channing's 
Sermon,  that  contradicts  this.  But  until  more 
than  this  is  done,  and  until  something  more  satis- 
factory, than  has  yet  been  said,  can  be  alleged  by 
them  to  show,  that  the  commonly  received  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  reconcileable  with  the  proper  Unity 
of  God,  we  must  be  allowed  to  consider  the  charge 
as  still   lying  in  its  full  force.      Of  this  the  most 


11 

respectable  Trinitarian  writers  seem  not  to  be 
insensible.  How  much  they  are  pressed  with  this 
difficulty,  and  how  impossible  they  find  it  to  extri- 
cate themselves  from  it,  appears  in  the  variety  of 
explanations  which  have  been  successively  resorted 
to,  and  the  dissatisfaction  expressed  with  every 
attempt  that  has  been  made  for  the  purpose.  The 
last  expedient,  indeed,  that  of  rejecting  the  use  of 
the  phrase  "three  persons,"  as  applied  to  the 
Deity,  and  substituting  for  it  that  of  "  three  dis- 
tinctions," if  by  distinctions  be  meant  any  thing 
short  of  separate  persons  or  agents,  may  be  consid- 
ered as  restoring  the  divine  Unity.  But  it  reduces 
the  Trinity  to  a  mere  unmeaning  name,  and  were 
it  not  an  abuse  of  language  of  mischievous  tendency, 
would  leave  nothing  on  the  subject,  that  need  be 
thought  worth  contending  about. 

Professor  Stuart  (p.  23)  expresses  regret  that 
the  term  person  had  ever  come  into  the  symbols  of 
the  churches,  sensible,  as  it  appears,  that  it  cannot 
be  used  in  any  intelligible  meaning,  without  infring 
ing  on  the  Unity,  and  running  into  palpable  Trithe- 
ism  ;  and  the  late  President  Dwight,  though  he 
contends  for  the  propriety  of  the  term,  (vol.  ii. 
p.  137,)  as  a  convenient  one  for  expressing  the 
things  intended  by  the  doctrine,  yet  confesses,  that 
if  he  is  asked  what  it  means,  he  must  answer,  I 
know  not.  But  what  is  the  particular  convenience 
of  the  use  of  a  term,  which  expresses  no  meaning, 
not  even  in  the  mind  of  him  that  uses  it,  we  are  left 
to  conjecture. 


12 

Upon  the  other  charge,  which  relates  to  the 
moral  perfections  of  God,  the  course  which  Dr. 
Woods  has  pursued  seems  to  me  liable  to  objection. 
In  his  fourth  Letter,  in  stating  what  was  necessary 
on  his  part,  and  the  mode  of  reasoning  proper  to  be 
pursued,  in  order  to  relieve  the  system  he  has  un- 
dertaken to  defend,  from  the  charge  of  inconsistency 
with  the  moral  perfections  of  God,  he  says,  "we  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  inquiry,  whether  the  common 
doctrine  of  depravity  can  consist  with  the  moral 
perfection  of  God,  nor  with  any  difficulty  whatever 
in  the  attempt  to  reconcile  them.7'  This  is  cer- 
tainly a  very  extraordinary  thought,  that  in  de- 
fending his  system  against  an  objection  to  which  it 
is  thought  liable,  he  should  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  very  objection  itself,  nor  with  the  difficulty 
it  involves.  Did  the  question  relate  to  the  simple 
fact,  whether  the  doctrine  of  depravity,  as  main- 
tained by  the  Orthodox,  were  a  doctrine  of  scripture 
or  not,  its  consistency  or  inconsistency  with  the 
moral  perfections  of  God  would  indeed  make  no 
part  of  the  ground,  on  which  the  argument  should 
proceed.  But  the  question  he  had  to  consider  was 
a  different  one  from  this.  The  doctrine  of  deprav- 
ity, together  with  the  associated  doctrines,  has  a 
place  in  the  system  of  Orthodox  faith.  It  is  upon 
the  ground  of  these  doctrines,  as  Dr.  Woods  ex- 
pressly admits,  (p.  25,)  that  Mr.  Channing  has 
used  the  language,  which  he  understands  as  imply- 
ing the  charge  under  consideration,  viz.  "that  the 
Orthodox  deny  the  moral  perfection  of  God.7'  Now 
it  certainly  does  belong  to  him,  who  would  relieve 


13 

the  system  from  that  imputation,  to  show,  not  oni) 
that  the  doctrine  of  depravity,  hut  that  all  the  other 
doctrines  connected  with  it  in  the  Calvinistic  sys- 
tem, are  consistent  with  the  moral  perfection  of 
God.  This  is  the  very  point  at  issue,  and  the  only 
point,  so  far  as  relates  to  this  charge,  with  which 
he  had  any  concern  ;  and  all  that  he  has  said  to 
show,  that  he  maintains  many  views  respecting  the 
divine  government  and  purposes  in  common  with 
Unitarians,  and  which  are  consistent  with  the  moral 
perfections  of  God,  will  do  nothing  toward  proving 
that  he  does  not  maintain  other  opinions,  which  are 
not  reconcileable  with  it.  He  was  required,  there- 
fore, in  undertaking  to  repel  this  charge,  not  only 
to  prove,  which  I  shall  afterward  show  he  has  not 
done,  that  the  scheme  of  doctrine,  which  he  defends, 
is  taught  in  the  scriptures,  but  also  to  prove  that  it  is 
in  itself  consistent  with  the  moral  perfection  ol  God. 
But  this  he  has  not  attempted  to  do.  He  has,  on 
the  contrary,  said  that,  which  implies,  that  what- 
ever the  fact  may  be,  the  consistency  demanded 
cannot  be  seen  to  exist.  Now  if  he,  who  believes 
the  doctrines  in  question  to  be  taught  in  the  scrip- 
tures, is  yet  unable  to  perceive  how  they  are 
reconcileable  with  the  moral  perfection  of  God ; 
ought  he  to  be  greatly  surprised,  or  much  disturbed, 
that  another,  who  cannot  find  them  taught  in  the 
bible,  and  who  sees  them  therefore  only  as  human 
opinions,  without  authority,  should  represent  them 
as  irreconcileable  with  that  moral  perfection,  which 
he  does  find  there  clearly  and  constantly  taught  ? 


14 

There  is  another  consideration  also,  not  to  be 
overlooked,  to  show  that  he  had  something  to  do 
with  this  inquiry.  If  the  doctrine  of  depravity,  as 
it  is  maintained  by  the  Orthodox,  cannot  be  per- 
ceived by  ns  to  be  consistent  with  the  moral  perfec- 
tion of  God,  the  presumption  is  very  strong,  that  it 
is  not  true  ;  since,  if  it  actually  be  inconsistent,  it 
certainly  cannot  be  true.  In  proportion  then  to  the 
difficulty  of  reconciling  it,  the  proof  of  it  from  scrip- 
ture and  our  experience  ought  to  be  clear,  and  not 
liable  to  objection.  The  neglect,  therefore,  to  re- 
move this  fundamental  objection  to  the  whole  sys- 
tem, you  perceive,  must  have  its  influence  upon  all 
the  reasoning  employed  in  the  direct  proof  of  its 
several  parts.  Nothing  but  the  most  clear  and  sat- 
isfactory proof  will  be  sufficient  for  the  support  of  a 
doctrine,  which  labours  under  the  weight  of  so  much 
intrinsic  incredibility,  confessedly  incapable  of  being 
removed. 

I  have  one  other  remark  to  make  in  this  place. 
Dr.  Woods  has  stated  correctly,  (p.  26)  "  That  in- 
dependently of  revelation,  and  well  known  facts,  we 
are  incapable  of  judging,  what  the  goodness  of  God 
will  require,  as  to  the  condition  of  man :  or  what 
man's  character  and  state  must  be  under  the  gov- 
ernment of  a  being  infinitely  wise  and  benevolent." 
But  the  inference  he  would  draw  from  this,  I  think 
you  will  perceive,  is  not  warranted  by  the  premi- 
ses. For  although  it  be  conceded,  that  from  the 
limitation  of  our  faculties,  we  are  incapable  of  say- 
ing what  the  goodness  or  justice  of  God  would  re- 
quire :  we  have  faculties  capable  of  deciding  with 


15 

certainty,  what  they  will  not  admit.  We  can  pro- 
nounce without  hesitation  with  respect  to  some 
things,  that  they  are  absolutely  irreconcileable  with 
those  attributes.  To  say  that  we  have  not  faculties 
for  this,  is  to  say,  not  that  our  knowledge  is  limited 
and  imperfect,  but  that  it  is  actually  nothing. 
There  may  be  a  thousand  cases,  like  those  stated 
by  Dr.  Woods,  which,  previous  to  experience,  we 
could  not  have  foreseen,  nor  should  have  expected, 
which  when  first  proposed  present  difficulties,  but 
which  are  yet  capable  of  being  accounted  for  in  a 
satisfactory  manner,  and  reconciled  with  that  justice 
and  goodness,  with  which  they  seem  at  first  to  be 
at  variance.  But  other  cases,  it  is  evident,  may 
be  supposed,  which  would  admit  of  no  such  expla- 
nation. And  what  I  contend  is,  that  the  orthodox 
doctrine,  as  to  the  natural  ••  character  of  man,  and 
the  manner  in  which  God  designates  the  heirs  of 
salvation,"  (p.  25)  is  of  this  kind ;  and  that  Dr. 
Woods'  assertion,  (p.  27)  "that  the  facts  he  has 
there  stated,  and  which  are  known  to  all,  are  as  far 
from  being  agreable  to  what  we  should  naturally 
imagine  the  infinite  goodness  of  God  would  dictate, 
as  the  fact  that  men  are  subjects  of  moral  deprav- 
ity," cannot  be  supported.  There  is  no  such 
analogy  between  the  cases,  as  to  warrant  the 
conclusion.  For  we  can  see,  with  respect  to  the 
former,  how  they  may  be  consistent  with  the  moral 
perfections  of  God  ;  but  we  can  make  no  supposi- 
tion, upon  which  we  shall  be  able  to  perceive,  that 
the  latter  can  be  so.  The  reason  is,  that,  with 
respect  to  all  the  former  cases,  such  as  the  promis- 


10 

cuous  suffering  and  ruin  brought  upon  men  by 
plagues,  hurricanes,  and  earthquakes, — the  cruelties 
and  horrors  of  the  slave-trade, — and  the  darkness 
and  ignorance  to  which  so  large  a  portion  of  the 
human  race  are  by  the  inevitable  circumstances  of 
their  condition  subjected, — the  evil  is  not  final  and 
remediless,  but  is  partial  or  temporary,  and  may  be 
considered  as  inflicted  for  the  purpose  of  discipline; 
and  the  single  consideration,  that  it  makes  a  part 
of  human  probation,  and  that  the  subject  of  it  may 
yet,  by  the  manner  in  which  he  conducts  under  it, 
be  an  infinite  gainer  in  the  whole  of  his  existence, 
relieves  it  from  all  objection  arising  from  any  sup- 
posed inconsistency  with  the  justice  or  goodness  of 
God.  But  the  doctrine  of  the  native  depravity  of 
man,  taken  in  its  connexion  with  the  whole  scheme 
of  which  it  is  a  part ;  personal  unconditional 
election,  a  complete  atonement  made  for  those,  who 
are  thus  ordained  to  eternal  life,  and  their  regen- 
eration by  a  special  irresistible  influence  of  the 
spirit  of  God ;  and  what  is  the  necessary  and 
infallible  consequence  of  all  this,  the  equal  uncondi- 
tional reprobation  and  final  and  everlasting  ruin  of 
all  the  rest  of  the  human  race,  certainly  admits  of 
no  such  reconciliation  with  any  notion  we  can  have 
of  the  moral  perfection  of  the  Author  of  our  being. 
As  Dr.  Woods,  however,  makes  no  attempt  to 
show  how  they  are  capable  of  being  reconciled  ;  as 
he  has  virtually  admitted  that  they  are  incapable 
of  being  perceived  by  us  to  be  consistent  with  each 
other;  and  has  contented  himself  with  endeavouring 
to  prove  the  several  doctrines  as  matters  of  fact, 


17 

upon  the  principle,  that  if  he  can  clearly  prove 
them  to  be  doctrines  of  scripture,  he  is  not  bound 
to  show  how  they  can  be  consistent  with  the  divine 
perfections,  it  is  unnecessary  to  say  any  thing  more 
to  show,  that  the  imputation  of  which  he  complains 
is  not  removed.  I  shall  therefore  proceed  directly 
to  the  consideration  of  the  evidence  upon  which 
the  several  doctrines  in  question  rest  as  matters  of 
fact. 


LETTER  III. 

The  discussion  introduced  by  Dr.  Woods  in  his 
fourth  Letter,  and  pursued  through  the  fifth  and 
sixth,  relates  to  "the  natural  character  of  man.7' 
As  the  question,  "what  is  the  natural  character  of 
man,"  lies  at  the  very  foundation  of  the  controversy 
between  Unitarians  on  the  one  hand,  and  Trinita- 
rians and  Calvinists  on  the  other,  it  will  prepare 
us  for  a  fair  discussion  of  it,  to  examine  in  the  first 
place  what  is  the  precise  difference  of  opinion 
between  them  on  the  subject. 

Heretofore,  those  who  claimed  the  title  of  Ortho- 
dox, and  professed  to  follow  the  doctrine  of  Calvin, 
were  satisfied  with  the  language  used  by  the 
Westminster  Divines  in  the  Catechism  and  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  in  which  the  doctrines  of  that  reformer 
are  expressed  with  remarkable  precision  and 
distinctness.     Tn  them  the  dor  trine,  which  respects 


18 

the  natural  state  of  man  since  the  fall,  and  in  conse- 
quence of  that  event,  has  two  parts.  They  repre- 
sent the  first  sin  of  our  first  parent,  as  imputed  to 
all  his  posterity,  who  are  said  to  have  sinned  in  him, 
mid  to  have  fallen  -with  him  ;  and  they  teach  the 
entire  corruption  of  man's  nature,  that  he  is  utterly 
indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all  that  is 
spiritually  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil, — 
under  the  displeasure  and  curse  of  God,  and  liable  to 
all  punishments  in  this  world  and  that  which  is  to 
come. 

It  seems  that  the  first  part  of  this  account, 
though  it  was  formerly  reckoned  one  of  the  principal 
tests  of  Orthodoxy,  more  zealously  maintained  than 
any  other,  is  now  given  up.  It  is  wholly  omitted 
in  the  Creed  adopted  by  the  Theological  Institution 
in  Andover.  It  is  expressly  given  up  by  Dr. 
Woods.  "The  Orthodox  in  New  England  at  the 
present  day,"  he  tells  us,  p.  44,  "  are  not  charge- 
able with  the  erroneous  opinions  held  by  their 
predecessors.  The  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to 
his  posterity,  in  any  sense,  which  those  words 
naturally  and  properly  convey,  is  a  doctrine  which 
we  do  not  believe."  This  change  in  the  opinions 
of  the  Orthodox,  and  advance  toward  what  we 
believe  to  be  right  views,  we  are  glad  to  witness  ; 
and  have  no  doubt  that  the  same  correct  mode  of 
thinking  and  reasoning,  which  has  led  to  it,  will 
lead  also  to  the  rejection  of  the  other  part  of  the 
doctrine,  which  has  heretofore  been  considered  as 
inseparably  connected  with  it.  We  think  that 
further  reflection  will  convince  them,  that  they  are 


19 

inseparably  connected — that  if  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  guilt  is  a  solecism,  and  inconsistent  with 
the  moral  character  of  God,  it  is  equally  so,  that, 
in  consequence  of  it,  all  his  posterity  should  come 
into  being  with  a  nature  so  totally  corrupt  and  in- 
clined to  sin,  as  to  be  incapable  of  any  good. 

I  could  have  wished  that  Dr.  Woods  had  given 
a  more  distinct  and  compact  definition  of  the  doc- 
trine he  meant  to  defend  on  this  point,  that  there 
might  be  no  mistake  of  the  question  between  us. 
From  scattered  expressions,  however,  and  from  his 
having  made  no  exception  with  respect  to  this  part 
of  the  doctrine,  I  think  we  are  to  conclude,  though 
he  chooses  to  express  it  in  somewhat  softened  and 
qualified  language,  that  he  holds  it  in  its  full  extent. 
By  such  expressions  as  the  following,  (p.  31)  "  by- 
nature  men  are  subjects  of  an  innate  moral  depravi- 
ty ;" "  while  unrenewed,   their  moral  affections 

and  actions  are  wholly  wrong.'7  (p.  43)  6f  All, 
without  exception  by  nature,  or  in  consequence  of 
their  natural  birth,  are  in  such  a  state  of  moral 
impurity,  as  disqualifies  them  for  the  enjoyments  of 
heaven,  unless  they  are  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit." 
And  (p.  46)  "  Adam's  transgression  had  such  a  re- 
lation to  his  posterity,  that  in  consequence  of  it,  they 
were  constituted  sinners,  and  subjected  to  death,  and 
all  other  sufferings,  as  penal  evils ;"  he  means  all 
that  is  meant  by  the  following  expressions  in  the 
Assembly's  Catechism  and  Confession  of  Faith. 
•'•'  The  corruption  of  his  nature,  by  which  he  is  utter- 
ly indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all 
that  is  spiritually  good,   and  wholly  inclined  to  all 


evil,  and  that  continually — and  that  men  are  thus 
by  nature,  as  they  are  born,  under  the  displeasure 
and  curse  of  God  ;  justly  liable  to  all  punishments 
in  this  world  and  that  which  is  to  come.7' 

I  am  fortified  in  this  by  recurring  to  the  Creed 
of  the  Institution  with  which  he  is  connected,  in 
which  I  find  the  following  passage.  "  That  in  con- 
sequence of  his  [Adam's]  disobedience,  all  his 
descendants  were  constituted  sinners :  that  by  nature 
every  man  is  personally  depraved,  destitute  of  holi- 
ness, unlike  and  opposed  to  God,  and  that  previously 
to  the  renewing  agency  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  all  his 
moral  actions  are  adverse  to  the  character  and  glory 
of  God  ;  that  being  morally  incapable  of  recovering 
the  image  of  his  Creator,  which  was  lost  in  Adam, 
every  man  is  justly  exposed  to  eternal  damnation." 

The  doctrine  respecting  the  natural  condition  of 
man,  which  I  shall  now  state,  and  endeavour  to 
maintain  in  opposition  to  this,  may  be  expressed  in 
the  following  manner. 

Man  is  by  nature,  by  which  is  to  be  understood, 
as  he  is  born  into  the  world,  as  he  comes  from  the 
hands  of  the  Creator,  innocent  and  pure  ;  free  from 
all  moral  corruption,  as  well  as  destitute  of  all  posi- 
tive holiness  ;  and,  until  he  has,  by  the  exercise  of 
his  faculties,  actually  formed  a  character  either  good 
or  bad,  an  object  of  the  divine  complacency  and 
favour.  The  complacency  and  favour  of  the  Creator 
are  expressed  in  all  the  kind  provisions  that  are 
made  by  the  constitution  of  things  for  his  improve- 
ment and  happiness.  He  is  by  nature  no  more 
inclined  or  disposed  to  vice  than  to  virtue,  and  is 


21 

equally  capable,  in  the  ordinary  use  of  his  faculties, 
and  with  the  common  assistance  afforded  him,  of 
either.  He  derives  from  his  ancestors  a  frail  and 
mortal  nature ;  is  made  with  appetites,  which  fit 
him  for  the  condition  of  being  in  which  God  has 
placed  him  ;  but  in  order  for  them  to  answer  all  the 
purposes  intended,  they  are  so  strong,  as  to  be  very 
liable  to  abuse  by  excess.  He  has  passions  implant- 
ed in  him,  which  are  of  great  importance  in  the 
conduct  of  life,  but  which  are  equally  capable  of 
impelling  him  into  a  wrong  or  a  right  course.  He 
has  natural  affections,  all  of  them  originally  good, 
but  liable  by  a  wrong  direction  to  be  the  occasion 
of  error  and  sin.  He  has  reason  and  conscience  to 
direct  the  conduct  of  life,  and  enable  him  to  choose 
aright ;  which  reason  may  yet  be  neglected,  or  per- 
verted, and  conscience  misguided.  The  whole  of 
these  together  make  up  what  constitutes  his  trial 
and  probation.  They  make  him  an  accountable 
being,  a  proper  subject  to  be  treated  according  as 
he  shall  make  a  right  or  wrong  choice,  being  equally 
capable  of  either,  and  as  free  to  the  one  as  to  the 
other. 

That  this,  and  not  the  scheme  of  innate  moral 
depravity,  is  the  truth,  I  shall  endeavour  now  to 
show  by  arguments  drawn 

1.  From  observation  and  experience,  and 

2.  From  the  Scriptures. 

It  is  to  my  purpose,  previous  to  entering  on  this 
discussion,  to  observe,  what  the  Orthodox  will  not 
hesitate  to  admit,  that  judging  beforehand,  the 
scheme  of  total  moral  depravity,  or  of  any  original 


22 

bias  to  evil  rather  than  good,  is  something  different 
from  what  we  should  expect,  and  involves  great 
difficulty  in  reconciling  it  with  the  moral  perfections 
of  God.  This,  as  I  have  before  observed,  is  implied 
(p.  29)  by  Dr.  Woods  himself.  I  admit,  with  him, 
that  this  is  not  a  sufficient  reason  for  rejecting  it  in 
opposition  to  the  evidence  of  fact,  and  of  scripture, 
and  for  the  reason  which  he  gives,  viz.  that  we  are 
finite,  and  cannot  so  comprehend  the  purposes  and 
conduct  of  an  infinite  being,  as  to  be  certain,  that 
what  seems  to  us  inconsistent  with  his  moral  charac- 
ter, is  so  in  reality.  But  it  is  a  good  reason  for 
yielding  our  assent  with  caution,  not  till  we  have 
examined  with  care,  and  not  without  very  satisfac- 
tory evidence.  It  is  a  reason  for  suspending  our 
assent,  and  reexamining,  so  as  to  be  entirely  satisfi- 
ed as  to  the  fact.  I  have  another  remark  also  to 
make.  The  doctrine,  it  is  confessed,  is  repulsive. 
The  mind  naturally  revolts  at  it.  It  seems  at  first, 
to  all  men,  universally,  to  be  inconsistent  with  the 
divine  perfection.  But  the  first  impression  is  made 
upon  us  by  the  nature  which  God  has  given  us  ;  and 
I  think  we  should  be  slow  to  believe  that  a  nature, 
thus  given  to  all,  is  intended  to  mislead  and  actually 
does  mislead  all,  on  so  important  a  question.  It  is 
certainly  an  extraordinary  fact,  if  a  fact  it  is,  that 
God  should  first  give  to  man  a  corrupt  nature,  wholly 
averse  to  good  and  inclined  to  evil,  and  at  the  same 
time  endow  him  with  a  moral  discernment  and  feel- 
ings, which  lead  him  instinctively  to  deny  that  God 
can  so  have  made  him,  because  inconsistent  with 
justice  and  goodness  ;  that  is,  that  he  has  given  him 


23 

a  natural  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  which  leads  him 
to  arraign  the  conduct  of  the  Being  who  made  him. 
I  proceed  now  to  the  inquiry,  what  observation 
and  experience  teach  us,  as  to  the  fact  of  human 
depravity.     And  here  we  must  not  forget,  that  the 
question  is,   not  whether  there  is    a   great  deal  of 
wickedness  in  the  world,  but  what  is  the  source  of 
that  wickedness  ;  not   whether  mankind   are  very 
corrupt,   but  how  they  became  so  ;  whether  it  is  a 
character  born  with  them,  or  acquired  ;  whether  it 
is  what  God  made  them,  or  what  they  have  made 
themselves.     All  that  is    said  of  the  prevalence  of 
wickedness  in  the  world  may  be  true,  and  yet  none 
of  it   the    effect   of  an    original    taint,  which   men 
brought  into  the  world  with  them ;  none  of  it  making 
a  part  of  their  original  nature.     I  may  acquiesce  in 
the  mournful  and  humbling  representations  given  of 
the  violence  of  human  passions,  the  brutal  excesses 
that  follow  the  unrestrained  indulgence  of  the  appe- 
tites ;  the  intemperance  and  self-indulgence  of  in- 
dividuals ;  the  wrongs,  violation  of  the  rights,  and 
neglect  of  the  duties  of  domestic  life  ;  the  injustice, 
and  fraud,  and  violence,  prevalent  in  every  form  in 
all  the  transactions   of  social  life  ;  the  pride,  and 
selfishness,  aud   regardlessness    of  the    rights    and 
feelings  of  others,  appearing  in  a  thousand  forms  ; 
the  wars  which  desolate    the  earth,  the  abuses  of 
government,  and  the  oppression  and  tyranny,  that 
are  exercised  by  some  over  the  rest  of  their  fellow- 
beings.    All  these  representations  may  be  true,  and 
no  more  than  a  just  account  of  what  actually  takes 
place,  and   yet  the  whole    be  fairly  accounted  for. 


24 

without  any  original  and  natural  bias  to  sin.  All 
may  be  but  the  effect  of  neglect  to  restrain  appe- 
tites, in  themselves  useful  and  good,  to  control  and 
give  a  proper  direction  to  passions  designed  to  be 
useful  and  capable  of  the  very  best  effects,  and  in 
general  a  failure  to  exercise  properly,  in  tempta- 
tions and  trials,  the  powers  of  direction  and  resist- 
ance, which  were  in  themselves  sufficient. 

But,  although  this  reply  may  be  made,  were  the 
representation  usually  given  of  the  human  charac- 
ter, and  of  the  prevalence  of  wickedness,  correct  in 
its  fullest  extent ;  I  am  satisfied  that  I  am  not  called 
upon  by  truth  to  make  that  concession.  I  insist, 
that  the  account  usually  given  of  human  wickedness 
is  exaggerated.  It  is  a  partial  account,  and  such 
as  gives  a  very  wrong  impression.  Men  are  not 
the  mere  brutes  and  fiends,  which  it  would  make 
them.  There  is  much  of  good  as  well  as  of  evil  in, 
the  human  character,  and  in  the  conduct  of  man. 
Indeed,  I  hesitate  not  to  say,  that  as  much  as  there 
is  of  wickedness  and  vice,  there  is  far  more  of  virtue 
and  goodness;  as  much  as  there  is  of  ill-will,  un- 
kindness,  injustice,  and  inhumanity,  there  is  incom- 
parable more  of  kindness,  good  disposition,  pity, 
and  charity.  I  insist,  that  if  we  take  a  fair  and  full 
viewT,  we  shall  find  that  wickedness,  far  from  being 
the  prevailing  part  of  the  human  character,  makes 
but  an  inconsiderable  part  of  it.  That  in  by  far 
the  largest  part  of  human  beings,  the  just,  and 
kind,  and  benevolent  dispositions  prevail  beyond 
measure  over  the  opposite ;  and  that  even  in  the 
worst  men,  good  feelings  and  principles  are  predom- 


25 

inant,  and  they  probably  perform  in  the  course  of 
their  lives  many  more  good  than  bad  actions  ;  as 
the  greatest  liar  does,  by  the  constitution  of  his 
nature,  doubtless  speak  many  truths  to  every  lie  he 
utters.  One  great  source  of  misapprehension  is,  that 
virtues  and  good  qualities  are  silent,  secret,  noise- 
less ;  vices  are  bold,  public,  noisy,  seen  by  all,  felt 
by  all,  noted  by  all. 

But  whether  this  be  so  or  not,  the  ground  for 
rejecting  the  doctrine  of  innate  original  moral  de- 
pravity will  not  be  materially  affected.  It  is  not 
supported  by  observation  and  experience,  as  we 
have  a  right  to  demand  of  a  doctrine  so  apparently 
inconsistent  with  the  moral  attributes  of  the  Deity. 

What  I  assert  upon  this  point,  and  think  to  be 
very  obvious  and  capable  of  being  made  out  to  entire 
satisfaction,  is,  that  observation  and  experience  are 
altogether  favourable  to  the  view  I  have  stated  of 
the  human  character  and  condition,  and  that  without 
revelation  there  is  nothing  that  would  lead  a  reflect- 
ing man  to  the  thought  of  an  innate  moral  deprav- 
ity. 

It  is  easy  to  bring  together  into  one  picture,  and 
place  in  a  strong  light,  with  exaggerated  features, 
all  the  bad  passions  in  their  uncontrolled  and  un- 
qualified state,  all  the  atrocious  crimes  that  have 
been  committed,  all  the  bad  dispositions  that  have 
been  indulged ;  but  the  picture,  though  it  contain 
nothing,  but  what  is  found  in  men,  will  be  far,  very 
far,  from  being  a  just  picture  of  human  nature.  Let 
all  that  is  virtuous,  and  kind,  and  amiable,  and 
good,  be  brought  into  the  picture,  and  presented  in 


26 

their  full  proportions,  and  the  former  will  be  found 
to  constitute  a  far  less  part  of  it,  than  we  were  ready 
to  imagine. 

Our  most  correct  ideas  of  human  nature  will  be 
drawn  from  the  characteristics  of  infancy,  and  the 
earliest  indications  of  disposition,  tendency,  and 
character  in  the  infant  mind  ;  and  if  the  nature  of 
man  be  corrupt,  inclined  to  evil,  and  evil  only,  it 
will  appear  there  with  its  unequivocal  marks.  But 
do  we  find  it  there,  and  is  it  the  common,  untaught 
sentiment  of  mankind,  that  it  exists  there  ?  Far  from 
it.  Innocence,  and  simplicity,  and  purity  are  the 
characteristics  of  early  life.  Truth  is  natural  ; 
falsehood  is  artificial.  Veracity,  kindness,  good- 
will flow  from  the  natural  feelings.  Duplicity,  and 
all  the  cold,  and  selfish,  and  calculating  manners  of 
society  are  the  fruit  of  education,  and  intercourse 
with  the  world.  We  have  marks  enough  of  a  feeble, 
helpless  nature,  calling  for  sympathy,  assistance, 
support,  kindness  ;  but  we  see  no  proofs  of  depravi- 
ty, of  malignity,  of  inclination  to  evil  in  preference 
to  good.  How  early  does  the  infant  discover  affec- 
tion, attachment,  gratitude  to  those  from  whom  it 
receives  kindness  !  How  universally  is  it  an  object 
of  interest  to  those  about  it !  Would  it  be  so,  if  it 
manifested  such  tokens,  as  the  orthodox  doctrine  of 
depravity  supposes,  of  an  inclination,  disposition, 
and  tendency,  wholly  directed  to  evil,  and  if  it  ap- 
peared to  possess  nothing  good,  and  no  tendency  to 
good  ?  Instead  of  this,  must  it  not  naturally  be  the 
object  of  aversion  and  disgust,  and  especially  so  to 
pious  and  virtuous  persons,  who  can  only  love  and 


27 

approve  those,  whom  God  loves  and  approves  ;  and 
who  therefore  can  see  in  little  children,  only  objects 
of  the  divine  displeasure  and  wrath,  beings  wholly 
averse  to  God  and  all  that  is  good,  and  who  deserve, 
not  sympathy  and  affection,  but  all  punishments  of 
this  world  and  the  world  to  come  ? 

It  is  often  said,  that  children  are  naturally  in- 
clined to  falsehood  and  deception,  and  that  they 
early  lie  and  deceive,  rather  than  speak  the  truth. 
But  this  charge  needs  proof;  and  I  apprehend  it 
will  be  found  that  evidence  is  abundantly  against  it, 
and  in  favour  of  the  natural  veracity  of  children. 
It  will  rarely  be  found,  that  children  disregard  the 
truth,  till  by  example,  or  bad  education,  or  peculiar 
circumstances  of  temptation,  they  have  learned  to 
overcome  and  counteract  the  tendency  of  nature. 
That  they  are  so  proverbially  simple,  unsuspicious, 
and  easily  imposed  upon,  arises  from  their  judging 
others  by  themselves.  It  is  because  they  themselves 
are  conscious  of  no  thought  of  deceiving,  that  they 
never  suspect  others.  Great  differences  of  character 
in  this,  as  in  other  respects,  appear  at  an  early  age  ; 
but  what  I  have  stated,  I  am  persuaded  is  the  gen- 
eral character,  until  the  disposition  and  tendency  of 
nature  has  been  changed  by  education,  example, 
and  circumstances. 

It  is  alleged,  also,  that  children  are  naturally 
cruel ;  and  in  proof  of  it,  the  pleasure  they  seem  to 
take  in  torturing  insects  and  small  animals  is  some- 
times mentioned.  But  the  pleasure,  which  the 
convulsions  and  throes  of  a  tortured  insect  or  animal 
give   to    a  child,   arises   from   another  source  than 


28 

cruelty,  or  the  desire  of  giving  pain.  It  is  wholly 
to  be  attributed  to  the  love  of  excitement,  and  the 
pleasure  it  takes  in  rapid  and  violent  motion  ;  and 
is  wholly  unconnected  with  the  idea  of  suffering  in 
the  creature,  with  whose  convulsions  it  is  delighted. 
The  same  pleasure  would  be  derived  from  the  power 
of  producing  the  same  convulsive  motions,  and  the 
same  appearance  in  any  inanimate  substance.  In 
proof  of  this,  let  a  clear  idea  of  the  suffering  of  the 
insect  be  communicated  to  the  child,  and  it  will  no 
longer  take  pleasure  in  its  convulsions.  A  sentiment 
of  compassion  will  be  raised.  It  will  be  as  eager  to 
rescue  it  from  its  suffering,  as  before  it  was  to  inflict 
that  suffering.  This  I  am  persuaded  will  usually, 
if  not  always,  be  the  case.  But  if  it  were  from  native 
cruelty,  the  love  of  inflicting  pain,  or  from  any  de- 
pravity of  nature ;  instead  of  ceasing  from  it  the 
moment  it  was  made  acquainted  with  the  suffering 
of  the  animal,  that  knowledge  would  be  a  new  motive 
to  proceed ;  as  it  would  give  it  the  satisfaction  of 
knowing,  that  its  malignant  purpose  was  effected,  its 
cruel  design  accomplished.  The  same  account  is 
to  be  given  of  what  is  often  called  a  mischievous 
disposition  in  children.  It  is  not  the  love  of  mischief, 
but  an  exuberant  love  of  activity.  The  mischief  or 
inconvenience  which  they  occasion  to  others  is  no 
part  of  the  motive,  but  simply  the  love  of  action  and 
strong  excitement ;  and  it  may  be  accompanied  with 
the  kindest  feelings,  the  most  sincere  desire  of  giv- 
ing pleasure  to  others,  and  as  sincere  an  unwilling- 
ness to  give  pain  or  to  cause  uneasiness  or  dis- 
pleasure. 


29 

Indeed  I  know  not  a  single  mark  of  early  de- 
pravity, common  to  children  in  general,  which  may 
not,  as  these  are,  he  fairly  traced  to  causes,  which 
imply  no  degree  of  depravity,  and  no  fault  of  char- 
acter, or  of  disposition.  Individuals  there  may  be, 
who  give  very  early  tokens  of  great  perversity  of 
mind,  and  corruption  of  heart.  But  these  are  ex- 
ceptions from  the  general  character  of  human  na- 
ture, and,  as  such,  have  no  place  in  the  present 
argument ;  and  if  they  had  any,  would  be  decisive, 
not  in  favour  of  the  orthodox  doctrine,  but  against 
it ;  as  the  exception,  in  its  nature,  proves  the  oppo- 
site ride.  If  great  depravity  is  the  exception,  ex- 
emption from  depravity  must  be  the  rule. 

No  man,  I  am  persuaded,  was  ever  led  by  per- 
sonal observation  and  experience  to  the  thought  of 
an  original  depravity  of  human  nature,  according  to 
which,  by  the  bias  of  nature,  all,  without  exception, 
who  come  into  the  world,  are  from  their  birth 
inclined  wholly  to  evil,  and  averse  to  good. 

And  as  little,  I  am  persuaded,  would  any  one  be 
led  to  such  an  opinion  by  the  general  current  of 
scripture.  I  am  led  to  think  so  by  a  general  view 
of  the  commands,  precepts,  exhortations,  promises, 
and  threatcnings  of  religion,  and  by  the  whole  his- 
tory of  the  divine  dispensations  to  men  ;  and  also 
by  attending  to  a  great  number  of  particulars,  each 
of  which,  separately,  seems  to  me  to  imply,  that 
mankind  come  into  the  world  innocent  and  pure,  the 
objects  of  the  complacency  of  the  Creator,  and  no 
more  inclined,  by  the  nature  God  has  given  them,  to 
sin,  than  to  virtue  :  no  more  disposed  to  hate  and 
4 


30 

disobey,  than  to  love  and  obey  their  Maker.    I  shall 
instance  only  in  one,  but  that  alone,  in  my  opinion, 
is  decisive  of  the  question.     I  refer  to  the  manner 
in  which  little  children  are,  on  two  occasions,  spoken 
of  by  our  Saviour,  and  on  one  by  the  Apostle  Paul. 
(Matt.  xix.  14)  u  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto 
me — for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."    These 
appear  to  have  been  infants,  or  at  least  very  small 
children,  for  he  took  them  into  his  arms  and  blessed 
them.    There  is  no  intimation  of  any  thing  peculiar 
in  them  ;  no  evidence  that  they  were  a  few,  selected 
from  among  many  ;  nothing  to  suggest  that   they 
were  different  from  other  children  ;  but  rather,  that 
they  were   like  other  children.     There  is  not  the 
slightest  intimation  that  these   particular  children 
had  become  the  subjects  of  any  great  moral  change. 
But  if  they  were  depraved,  destitute  of  holiness, 
averse  from  all  good,  inclined  to  all  evil,  enemies  of 
God,  subjects  of  his  wrath,  justly  liable  to  all  pun- 
ishments, could   our   Saviour   declare,   respecting 
them,  "  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God  ?"  And  could 
he,  on  another  occasion,  say,  (Matt,  xviii.  3)  "  Un- 
less ye  be  converted,  and  become  as  little  children, 
ye  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  ?"     And 
again,   (Mark  x.  14.  Luke  xviii.  16)  "  Whosoever 
shall  not  receive  the  kingdom   of  God  as   a   little 
child,  he  shall  not  enter  therein  ?" 

Could  the  Apostle  Paul  recommend  to  the  Co- 
rinthians, (1  Cor.  xiv.  20)  "  Be  not  children  in 
understanding,  but  in  malice  be  ye  children,  but  in 
understanding  be  men  ;"  that  is,  in  understanding, 
in  the  power  of  distinguishing  right  and  wrong,  and 


31 

perceiving  the  truth,  show  yourselves  to  be  men  ; 
but  in  your  dispositions,  in  your  moral  characters, 
manifest  the  gentleness,  and  mildness,  and  purity  of 
children  ?  I  know  not  how  these  passages  are  to  be 
explained,  so  as  to  consist  with  the  doctrine  of  innate 
depravity,  rendering  those  who  are  the  subjects  of 
it  enemies  to  God,  &c.  until  renewed  by  the  special 
influence  of  the  spirit  of  God.  I  have  never  seen 
them  satisfactorily  explained  upon  that  supposition, 
nor  do  I  believe  that  they  admit  of  such  explanation. 
They  most  clearly  imply,  until  turned  from  their 
obvious  meaning,  that  young  children  are  objects  of 
the  Saviour's  complacency  and  affection  ;  that  their 
innocency,  gentleness,  and  good  disposition  are  the 
proper  objects  of  imitation ;  that  they  are,  what  men 
are  to  become  by  conversion  or  regeneration. 

But  there  are,  as  I  have  said,  a  few  texts,  from 
which  the  doctrine  I  am  considering  is  inferred  ;  and 
these  have  been  brought  forward,  and  placed  in  all 
the  strength  of  which  they  are  capable,  by  those 
who  believe  and  defend  the  doctrine,  and  particu- 
larly by  the  able  advocate  it  has  found  in  the  author 
of  the  pamphlet  before  me. 

It  is  not  pretended,  I  believe,  by  any  of  the 
defenders  of  the  native,  hereditary'  depravity  of  the 
human  race,  that  the  doctrine  is,  any  where  in 
scripture,  expressly  asserted.  It  is  not  a  matter  of 
direct  assertion,  but  of  inference.  It  is  considered 
as  implied  in  several  passages.  Now  I  admit  that 
a  doctrine,  no  where  expressly  taught,  may  yet  be 
so  clearly  and  constantly  implied,  may  so  enter  into 
the  whole  texture  of  the  sacred  writings,  and  appear 


32 

in  every  part,  as  to  be  as  reasonable  an  object  of 
our  faith,  as  those  doctrines,  which  are  the  most 
distinctly  and  formally  enunciated.  But  examples  of 
this  kind  are  usually  (I  will  not  affirm  always,  but 
usually)  such  as  are  presented,  not  a  few  times  only, 
and  then  in  a  doubtful  form,  but  such  as  appear 
constantly,  and  enter  as  it  were  into  the  very  sub- 
stance of  the  whole.  Such,  for  instance,  is  the  being 
of  God,  no  where  asserted,  but  every  where  implied. 
Such  is  the  moral  freedom  of  man,  upon  which 
rests  his  accountability  as  a  moral  being ;  and  such, 
in  my  apprehension,  is  the  doctrine,  that  men  be- 
come sinners,  guilty  before  God,  and  objects  of  his 
displeasure  only  by  their  personal  acts,  and  not  by 
the  nature  with  which  they  came  into  being. 

The  first  text  adduced,  as  implying  innate  total 
depravity,  is  Gen.  vi.  5.  A  few  remarks  will  show 
how  little  it  is  to  the  purpose,  and  how  far  from 
supporting  what  is  made  to  rest  upon  it.  For,  in 
the  first  place,  it  relates  not  to  mankind  universally, 
but  to  the  degenerate  race  of  men  of  that  age,  so 
remarkably  and  universally  corrupt,  beyond  all  that 
had  gone  before,  or  have  followed  since,  as  to  call 
for  the  most  signal  tokens  of  the  vengeance  of 
heaven.  In  the  second  place,  were  it  said  of  all 
men  in  every  age,  instead  of  being  confined,  as  it  is, 
to  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  at  that  particular 
time,  it  would  still  be  nothing  to  the  purpose,  for 
which  it  is  brought.  There  is  no  assertion  of  native 
derived  depravity,  none  of  a  corrupt  nature,  no 
intimation  of  hereditary  guilt,  no  reference  to  innate 
aversion  to  good  and  inclination  to  evil.     It  is  the 


33 

mere  assertion  of  a  state  of  great  corruption  and 
wickedness,  which  no  one  denies  ;  and  not  only  of 
external  actions,  such  as  "  the  world  being  full  of 
violence,"'  but  of  purposes  and  dispositions  of  the 
heart,  implying  deep-rooted  and  radical  wickedness, 
expressed  by  "  the  imaginations  of  the  heart."  But 
this  is  all  perfectly  consistent  with  their  coming  into 
being,  innocent  and  pure.  It  is  not  what  they  are 
by  nature,  but  by  habit ;  not  what  they  were  as  they 
came  from  the  hands  of  the  Creator,  but  what  they 
have  become  in  the  use  or  rather  abuse  of  his  gifts, 
and  of  the  condition  in  which  he  placed  them. 

It  is  said  that  the  language  here  is  universal,  as 
also  when  it  is  used  again  in  the  viii.  chapter ;  and 
that  its  application  to  man  universally  in  all  ages 
and  nations,  is  confirmed  by  the  passages  quoted 
by  Paul,  in  the  iii.  chapter  of  Romans  from  Psalms 
xiv.  liii.  v.  cxl.  x.  xxxvi.  and  Isaiah  lix.  where  he 
describes  Jews  and  Gentiles  of  that  age,  in  passages 
borrowed  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  applies 
them  as  descriptive  of  the  character  of  mankind 
without  exception.  But  in  each  case  the  argument 
wholly  fails  of  proving  what  it  is  brought  to  prove  ; 
because  it  depends  for  its  force  on  an  interpretation 
of  language,  which  cannot  be  adopted  without  lead- 
ing to  consequences,  which  the  advocates  of  univer- 
sal original  depravity  would  be  as  slow  to  admit,  as 
its  opposers. 

It  goes  on  the  supposition  that  the  sacred  writers 
used  words,  as  no  other  writers  ever  did  use  them, 
with  perfect  philosophical  exactness,  instead  of  the 
popular  sense  ;  and  that  their  writings  were  to  be. 


54 

interpreted  by  rules,  to  which  no  other  writings 
will  bear  to  be  subjected. 

Universal  expressions,  like  those  in  the  texts  in 
question,  are  so  far  from  being  always  used  in  their 
strict  literal  sense,  that  they  are  usually  relative,  to 
be  understood  and  interpreted  in  relation  to  the 
subject  and  occasion.  Thus  when  it  is  said,  (1  Tim. 
ii.  4)  "  God  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved  and  come 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,"  it  relates  to  the 
question,  whether  any  class  or  nation  of  men  are 
excluded  from  the  favour  and  good -will  of  God,  and 
therefore  ought  to  be  excluded  from  a  share  in  the 
benevolent  regards  and  prayers  of  Christians  ;  so 
that  all  men  means,  not  every  individual,  but  all 
ranks,  descriptions,  and  conditions  of  men.  In  the 
unlimited  sense  of  the  words  it  is  not  true.  It  is  not 
true  that  God  wills  every  individual  to  come  to  the 
knowledge  of  truth,  i.  e.  of  the  Gospel ;  for  thou- 
sands are  precluded  from  the  possibility  of  it  by 
the  circumstances  of  their  being.  Nor  is  it  true, 
that  he  wills  all  men  to  be  finally  saved ;  but  only 
all  of  every  rank,  and  every  nation,  who  are 
penitent,  obedient,  and  faithful.  He  wills  none 
to  be  excluded  from  having  the  truth  proposed, 
and  salvation  offered  to  them.  And  that  all, 
who  receive  and  obey  it,  shall  actually  obtain 
the  salvation  offered.  So  also  (Tit.  ii.  11)  when 
it  is  said,  "  the  grace  of  God  bringing  salvation 
hath  appeared  to  all  men,"  the  meaning  cannot  be, 
every  individual,  for  it  never  has  been  published  to 
all  in  that  sense.  But,  as  in  the  other  case,  to 
men  of  every  nation,  age,  rank,  condition,  and  in  the 


35 

same  sense  in  which  Paul  (Col.  i.  23)  spoke  of  the 
Gospel,  as  "  preached  to  every  creature  under 
heaven." 

It  is  in  a  similar,  popular,  qualified  sense,  a 
sense  never  leading  men  into  mistakes  upon  other 
subjects  and  common  occasions,  that  Moses,  speak- 
ing of  the  general  wickedness  and  corruption  of 
manners,  which  were  the  occasion  of  the  flood,  uses 
language,  which  in  its  strictly  literal  import  might 
be  understood  to  mean,  that  there  was  no  virtue 
remaining  on  the  earth  ;  though  he  immediately 
tells  us,  that  Noah  was  an  exception  to  the  prevail- 
ing wickedness,  that  "  he  found  favour  in  the  eyes 
of  the  Lord,  (ch.  vi.  8,  9)  being  a  just  man,  perfect 
in  his  generations,  and  one  who  walked  with  God." 

The  same  remark  occurs  with  equal  force  in 
respect  to  the  passage  so  much  relied  on  in  the  xiv. 
Psalm.  Not  only  is  there  no  intimation  as  to  the 
origin  and  source  of  the  evil,  no  intimation  of  an 
inbred,  innate,  hereditary  depravity,  but  only  of 
great  and  general  corruption  of  manners  ;  but, 
though  a  verbal  universality  is  expressed,  the  very 
Psalm  itself  takes  care  to  teach  us  with  what  quali- 
fications it  is  to  be  understood.  For  while  it  asserts, 
in  the  strong  language  of  emotion  and  eastern  hy- 
perbole, "  that  all  were  gone  aside,  all  together 
become  filthy,  none  that  did  good,  no,  not  one,''  the 
writer  seems  wholly  unconscious  of  a  design  to  have 
his  language  understood  according  to  its  literal 
import ;  for  he  immediately  goes  on  with  expressions 
absolutely  incompatible  with  such  a  meaning.  He 
goes  on  to  speak  of  a  "  people  of  God,  a  generation 


36 

of  the  righteous,  whose  refuge  was  God."  The  same 
is  the  case  with  each  of  the  other  Psalms,  quoted  by 
Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

But  it  is  of  little  comparative  importance, 
whether  the  authors  of  the  Psalms,  or  the  Apostle  in 
quoting  them,  meant  to  be  understood  as  expressing 
a  general  truth  in  popular  language,  or  as  expressing 
themselves  with  literal  philosophical  exactness. 
Understand  them  in  the  most  unlimited,  unqualified 
sense,  of  which  their  words  are  capable,  they  ex- 
press only  what  no  one  will  deny,  that  all  men  are 
sinners.  The  question  will  still  be  open,  as  before, 
how  this  universality  of  sin  and  great  corruption  of 
manners  are  to  be  accounted  for.  Whether,  as  the 
advocates  of  Orthodoxy  contend,  men  come  into  the 
world  with  a  corrupt  nature,  prone  only  to  wicked- 
ness, and  utterly  incapable  of  any  good  thought  or 
action,  till  renewed  by  an  influence  of  the  holy  spirit, 
which  they  can  do  nothing  to  procure  ;  or  as  Unita- 
rians believe,  this  corrupt  nature  is  not  what  they 
received  from  God,  but  what  they  have  made  for 
themselves.  That  they  were  not  made  sinners,  but 
became  so  by  yielding  to  temptations,  which  it  was 
in  their  power  to  resist ;  by  obeying  the  impulse  of 
the  passions,  and  the  calls  of  appetite,  in  opposition 
to  the  direction  of  reason  and  the  notices  of  con- 
science ;  by  subjecting  themselves  to  the  dominion 
of  the  inferior  part  of  their  nature,  instead  of  put- 
ting themselves  under  the  guidance  of  their  superior 
faculties. 

Questions  may  be  asked   upon  this  statement, 
which  cannot  be  answered,  because  we   have  not 


37 

faculties  which  enable  us  in  any  cases  to  trace  things 
up  to  the  first  cause  and  spring  of  action.  But  no 
difficulty  so  great  and  insurmountable  meets  us,  as, 
on  the  opposite  theory,  is  the  moral  difficulty  in 
which  it  involves  the  character  of  the  Author  of  our 
being.  When  we  have  traced  back  the  wickedness 
of  men,  as  it  actually  exists,  to  the  voluntary  neg- 
Ject,  and  perversion,  and  abuse  of  the  nature  God 
has  given  them,  we  can  go  no  farther. 

It  is  asserted,  (pp.  38,  39)  u.  that  when  we  read 
in  the  Bible  the  highest  descriptions  of  human  wick- 
edness in  the  old  world,  in  Sodom,  in  Canaan,  in 
Jerusalem  ;  or  of  the  wickedness  of  individuals,  as 
Pharaoh,  Saul,  Jeroboam,  and  Judas  ;  it  is  perfectly 
just  and  natural  for  us  to  reflect,  such  is  human  na- 
ture, such  is  man  ;  and  orthodox  writers  reason  in 
an  unexceptionable  manner,  when  they  undertake 
to  show,  what  human  nature  is,  from  the  description 
which  is  given  of  the  wickedness  of  man  in  the  Old 
Testament." 

The  writer,  I  think,  must  perceive  that  he  has 
expressed  himself  rashly  or  carelessly,  when  he 
considers  clearly  the  force  and  bearing  of  what  he 
has  said  in  the  above  paragraph.  Are  we  to  con- 
sider those  places,  which,  singled  out  and  distin- 
guished from  all  others,  are  expressly  declared  to 
have  been  destroyed  for  their  enormous  and  incor- 
rigible wickedness,  as  fair  representatives  of  the 
usual  state  and  character  of  the  human  race  ?  Peo- 
ple, who  were  ordered  to  be  wholly  extirpated  for 
the  very  purpose  of  stopping  the  contagion  of  their 
vices,  preventing  the  spread   of  the  infection,  and 


38 

serving  as  a  warning  to  other  nations  to  prevent 
their  becoming  like  them  ?  Are  Pharaoh,  Jeroboam, 
and  Judas,  fair  examples  and  representatives  of 
human  nature  ?  Men,  singled  out  in  a  history  of 
two  thousand  years,  as  instances  of  uncommon 
wickedness,  visited  with  as  uncommon  tokens  of 
retributory  justice  ?  Let  it  be  asked,  why  the 
cruelty  and  obstinacy  of  Pharaoh,  rather  than  the 
humanity,  and  piety,  and  meekness  of  Moses  ;  why 
the  idolatry,  and  unprincipled  ambition,  and  selfish- 
ness of  Jeroboam,  rather  than  the  piety,  tenderness 
of  conscience,  and  public  spirit  of  Josiah  ;  why  the 
single  wretch,  who  was  so  base  and  sordid  as  to  sell 
and  betray  his  Master,  rather  than  the  eleven,  who 
were  true  and  faithful  to  him,  should  be  selected  as 
specimens  of  the  race  to  which  they  belong,  and  the 
great  community  of  which  they  make  a  part  ? 

Would  you  select  the  period  of  seven  years' 
famine,  as  an  example  of  the  usual  fertility  of 
Egypt?  The  desolating  pestilence  in  the  days  of 
David,  as  a  fair  specimen  of  the  salubrity  of  the 
climate  of  Israel  ?  Would  you  go  to  a  lazar-house 
or  hospital,  rather  than  to  the  fields,  the  wharves, 
and  the  factories,  to  know  what  is  the  usual  state  of 
human  health  and  activity  ?  Is  an  ideot  or  a  mad- 
man a  just  specimen  of  the  human  intellect?  Or 
are  we  to  find  in  our  prisons,  and  at  the  gallows, 
in  highwaymen,  pirates,  and  murderers,  a  true 
index  to  point  out  the  general  morals  of  the  com- 
munity? 

It   is   unnecessary  to  multiply  remarks    on  the 
next  text  brought  to  prove  human  depravity.    (Jer. 


39 

xvii.  9)  (i  The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things, 
and  desperately  wicked."  Admit  that  it  relates  to 
a  prevailing  trait  in  the  human  character ;  do  we 
not  well  know,  that,  in  the  common  use  of  language, 
such  general  expressions  are  seldom  to  be  under- 
stood as  universal  in  their  application  ?  They  are 
to  be  understood  in  a  limited  and  popular  sense. 
What  is  more  than  this,  though  the  text  were  intend- 
ed to  express  a  trait  of  character  absolutely  uni- 
versal, it  has  no  more  relation  to  the  question  res- 
pecting the  source  of  human  wickedness,  whether  it 
be  natural  or  acquired,  than  any  other  descriptions 
of  prevalent  wickedness  in  the  world.  But  the  total 
irrelevancy  of  the  text  to  the  purpose,  for  which 
it  is  brought,  appears  best  by  considering  the  sub- 
ject matter,  about  which  it  is  introduced.  The 
prophet  is  stating  the  safety  of  trusting  in  God,  and 
the  insecurity  of  trusting  in  man.  The  reason  is, 
that  men  are  deceitful,  and  not  to  be  depended  on. 
Now  this  reason  would  be  good,  and  support  the 
prophet's  conclusion,  though  deceit  and  treachery 
were  not  the  universal,  though  they  were  not  even 
the  general  character  of  men.  Were  there  many 
to  be  found,  who  would  deceive  and  betray,  it 
would  be  sufficient  to  justify  the  prophet,  in  with- 
drawing men  from  their  confidence  in  man,  and 
teaching  them  to  place  it  in  him,  who  can  never 
fail,  and  will  never  deceive.  And  it  would  suf- 
ficiently account  for  his  adding  in  the  next  verse, 
"  I  the  Lord  search  the  heart."  However  deceitful 
men  may  be,  and  able  to  impose  on  men,  there  is 


40 

one,  who  is  able  to  detect,  and  will  not  fail  to  pun- 
ish. 

From  the  New  Testament,  the  first  passage  se- 
lected, as  implying  the  doctrine  under  consideration, 
is  the  answer  of  Christ  to  Nicodemus,  (John  iii.  3) 
H  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the 
kingdom  of  God."  It  is  contended,  (pp.  42,  43) 
that  the  universal  necessity  of  regeneration,  expres- 
sed in  this  text,  implies  universal  depravity.  "  That 
this  necessity  of  a  moral  renovation  arises  from  the 
character  man  possesses  in  consequence  of  his  nat- 
ural birth  ;  that  all  must  be  born  again,  because, 
and  only  because,  all  without  exception  are,  by 
nature,  or  in  consequence  of  their  natural  birth,  in 
such  a  state  of  moral  impurity,  as  disqualifies  them 
for  the  enjoyments  of  heaven,  unless  they  are  re- 
newed by  the  holy  spirit." 

A  single  consideration  convinces  me,  that  the 
inference  is  without  foundation,  and  that  the  uni- 
versal necessity  of  regeneration  may  consist  with 
original  innocency,  and  exemption  from  any  pre- 
vailing tendency,  as  we  are  born  into  the  world,  to 
vice  rather  than  virtue.  By  their  natural  birth 
men  only  become  human,  reasonable,  accountable 
beings.  (i  What  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh."  They 
receive  by  their  natural  birth  only  the  human 
nature.  They  receive  no  moral  character,  but  only 
the  faculties  and  powers,  in  the  exercise  of  which  a 
moral  character  is  to  be  formed.  'The  formation  of 
this  character  introduces  them  into  a  new  state  of 
being,  and  by  whatever  means,  and  at  whatever  time 
it  takes  place,  it  may  be  called,  by  no  very  remote 


41 

or  unusual  figure,  a  new  birth ;  and  those,  who  have 
thus  acquired  a  moral  character,  and  received  the 
principles  of  a  spiritual  life,  in  addition  to  the 
natural  human  life,  may  be  said  to  be  born  again. 
Now  if  this  was  what  Jesus  meant  in  what  he  said 
to  Nicodemus,  it  will  no  more  imply  original  sin, 
than  original  holiness.  It  will  only  imply  the  ab- 
sence or  want  of  that,  which  was  necessary  to  be- 
coming a  subject  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  terms 
new  birth,  born  again,  born  of  the  spirit,  renexved, 
become  a  new  man,  are  applied  with  as  much  pro- 
priety to  those,  who  receive  the  influences  of  the 
Gospel,  and  acquire  the  character,  which  it  is  in- 
tended to  form,  on  the  supposition  of  original  inno- 
cence and  purity,  as  upon  that  of  native  depravity 
and  original  sinfulness.  In  each  case  alike,  it  ex- 
presses a  great  moral  change,  and  implies  the 
formation  of  a  new  character,  not  possessed  before. 
On  the  supposition,  therefore,  that  this  passage 
refers,  as  is  generally  supposed  by  interpreters,  to 
that  great  moral  change,  which  the  religion  of  the 
Gospel  is  to  produce  on  those  who  embrace  it,  in 
order  to  their  being  fit  members  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  on  earth  and  in  glory  ;  it  will  be  seen  to  be 
nothing  to  the  purpose  of  those,  who  attempt  to  build 
upon  it  the  doctrine  of  a  moral  depravity,  with 
which  all  men  are  born  into  the  world.  It  will  only 
imply,  that  they  do  not  possess  by  birth  that  char- 
acter of  personal  holjness  and  positive  virtue,  which 
is  necessary  to  their  being  Christians,  fit  subjects  of 
the  present  and  future  kingdom  of  God. 


48 

The  passage,  (Rom.  v.  12)  u  Wherefore,  as  by 
one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by 
sin,  and  so  death  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all 
have  sinned,"  is  of  another  kind,  and  to  be  shown 
to  have  no  relation  to  the  subject  by  other  consid- 
erations. The  whole  force  of  this  passage,  (if  it 
have  any,  as  relates  to  this  subject,)  lies  in  the  last 
clause,  "  For  that  all  have  sinned."  Now  if  this 
clause  be  understood  in  a  sense,  which  shall  prove 
any  thing  to  the  purpose,  it  will  prove  the  genuine 
old  Calvinistic  doctrine,  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
sin.  It  leads  back  to  the  notion  of  a  federal  head, 
of  Adam's  acting  not  only  on  his  own  responsibility, 
but  for  all  his  posterity  ;  acting  in  their  stead,  so 
that  his  action  was  theirs,  and  they  "  sinned  in  him 
and  fell  with  him  in  his  first  transgression."  They 
are  all  sinners  by  the  sin  of  him,  their  representa- 
tive, federal  head.  The  myriads  who  die  in  earliest 
infancy,  before  it  is  possible  for  them  to  perform 
any  act,  or  to  have  any  volition,  either  sinful  or 
virtuous,  yet  die  because  they  are  sinners.  They 
are  sinners  then  by  the  sin  of  another,  by  the  im- 
putation of  sin  to  them  ;  and  this  is  the  true  doctrine 
of  Calvinism ;  and  this,  it  seems  to  me,  is  also  the 
doctrine  of  Dr.  Woods,  notwithstanding  his  explicit 
rejection  of  it,  as  stated  in  words.  For,  besides 
that  he  acquiesces  in  the  qualified  statement  of 
Stapfer,  (p.  45)  (which,  after  all,  must  mean  the 
doctrine  of  imputation  in  its  full  extent,  if  it  have 
any  intelligible  meaning ;  since  God's  giving  Adam 
a  posterity  like  himself,  if  it  mean  any  thing  to  the 


43 

purpose,  must  mean  sinners  like  himself;)  besides 
this,  he  asserts,  that  the  Apostle's  reasoning  goes 
on  the  ground,  that  (p.  46)  "  Adam's  transgression 
had,  in  the  plan  of  the  divine  administration,  such  a 
relation  to  his  posterity,  that  in  consequence  of  it, 
they  were  constituted  sinners,  and  subjected  to 
death  and  all  other  sufferings,  as  penal  evils."  Now 
if  the  posterity  of  Adam  being  constituted  sinners, 
and  subjected  to  all  sufferings,  as  penal  evils,  that 
is,  as  punishments,  in  consequence  of  his  transgres- 
sion, mean  any  thing  to  the  purpose  for  which  it 
is  introduced,  and  yet  short  of  the  common  Calvin- 
istic  notion  of  imputation,  I  am  unable  to  perceive 
what  it  is,  and  it  needs  explanation,  and  a  more 
definite  statement,  than  I  have  seen. 

But  I  am  persuaded  the  passage  has  no  such 
meaning.  It  is  a  single  phrase  taken  away  from  its 
connexion,  and  what  is  more,  out  of  the  middle  of 
an  argument.  Did  it  therefore,  as  it  does  not,  ex- 
press distinctly  our  original  native  depravity,  it 
would  give  very  little  satisfaction  alone  ;  for  there 
is  no  sentiment  so  absurd,  that  it  may  not  be  sup- 
ported by  single  sentences,  thus  detached  from  the 
connexion  in  which  they  are  used.  But  I  have 
observed  that  in  its  most  obvious  sense  it  expresses 
no  such  native  corruption.  Understood  literally, 
the  only  assertion  it  contains  with  certainty  is  that 
of  a  fact,  which  none  will  deny,  the  universality  of 
sin,  that  all  have  sinned.  Now  the  nature  of  the 
universality  intended  to  be  asserted,  in  this,  as  in 
every  case,  is  to  be  learned  from  the  circumstances 
of  the  case.     All  who  are  capable  of  sinning,  all  as 


44 

soon  as  they  are  capable  of  it,  all  as  soon  as  they 
are  moral  agents.  Such  limitations  of  the  sense  of 
universal  expressions  in  other  cases  are  constantly 
occurring.  Were  all  the  inhabitants  of  a  country 
required  to  take  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  govern- 
ment ;  the  requisition  would  be  considered  as  com- 
plied with,  though  no  infants  and  small  children  had 
taken  the  oath,  and  all  would  be  considered  as  in- 
cluded under  its  obligation.  But  there  is  another 
consideration,  which  ought  to  prevent  this  text 
from  being  considered  of  any  weight  on  the  subject. 
The  whole  passage  in  which  it  stands  is  one  of  the 
most  intricate  and  difficult  in  the  New  Testament. 
The  phrase,*  on  which  so  much  is  made  to  depend, 
admits  equally  well  of  several  different  translations, 
each  of  which  will  give  it  a  different  meaning  ;  and 
its  connexion  with  the  passage  in  which  it  stands  is 
not  such,  as  to  help  us,  to  any  degree  of  certainty, 
in  determining  by  which  version  its  true  sense  is 
expressed.  Dr.  Woods  himself,  u  allows  it  to  be 
in  some  respects  very  obscure."  He  will  doubtless 
admit  then,  that  the  support  derived  to  a  doctrine, 


*  '££>'  »,  in  our  translation,  "for  that,"  has  been  rendered 
by  the  several  phrases,  because,  inasmuch  as,  as  far  as,  in 
whom,  unto  ivhich,  after  whom,  on  account  of  whom.  When 
meanings  so  various  are  assigned  to  this  text  by  Schleusner, 
Eisner,  Taylor,  Doddridge,  Whitby,  and  Macknight,  I  am 
justified  in  attributing  to  it  a  degree  of  obscurity  and  uncer- 
tainty, which  should  prevent  it  from  being  alleged  with  much 
confidence  in  proof  of  any  doctrine,  which  it  may  be  supposed 
to  express. 


45 

depending  on  any  particular  translation  of  this 
text,  or  any  particular  meaning  assigned  to  it,  will 
be  of  very  little  value  ;  of  none  indeed  any  farther, 
than  it  receives  support  itself  from  other  plainer 
passages. 

Ephesians  ii.  3,  u  And  were  by  nature  children 
of  wrath,  even  as  others."  The  connexion  and 
circumstances  of  the  case  show  the  meaning  of  this 
verse,  and  that  it  furnishes  no  proof  of  inbred  moral 
corruption,  but  only  of  corrupt  and  wicked  habits. 
It  refers  to  the  former  state  of  Jews  as  well  as 
heathen,  before  their  conversion  to  Christianity. 
In  that  state,  they  were  all  alike  children  of  wrath, 
deserving  of  wrath,  not  as  they  came  into  the  world, 
not  as  they  came  from  their  Maker's  hand,  but  as 
they  became  by  the  habits,  and  customs,  and  prac- 
tices of  that  state  into  which  they  were  born  ;  which 
was  a  state  of  nature,  as  compared  with  the  state  of 
grace,  into  which  they  were  introduced  by  Chris- 
tianity. What  they  were  before  they  became 
Christians,  they  were  by  nature  ;  what  they  became 
afterward,  was  by  the  grace  of  God,  which  appear- 
ed bringing  salvation.  The  state  of  nature  was 
that,  into  which  they  came  by  their  birth  ;  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  state  of  grace  into  which  they 
came,  when  they  embraced  Christianity.  When 
they  received  Christianity,  they  were  born  again, 
born  of  water  by  their  baptism,  born  of  the  spirit 
by  receiving  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  by  being 
renewed  in  the  temper  of  their  mind.  Then  they 
were  no  longer  children  of  wrath,  when  the  new 
6 


46 

birth  was  completed,  and  their  religion  had  pro- 
duced all  its  moral  effects. 

According  to  this  view  of  the  subject,  the  state 
of  nature  has  no  reference  to  what  a  man  brings  into 
the  world  with  him,  but  it  stands  opposed  to  a  state 
of  grace.  It  is  that  state  in  which  all  are,  Jews  as 
well  as  Gentiles,  before  they  become  Christians. 
This  language  of  the  Apostle,  like  much  of  that  in 
the  Epistles,  referring  to  the  same  subject,  relates 
to  men,  as  bodies  of  men,  not  as  individuals.  It 
compares  them  together  as  bodies,  not  as  individuals. 
It  speaks  of  them  generally,  as  in  their  heathen  and 
Jewish  state,  and  then  in  their  Christian  state.  In 
the  former  "  dead  in  sin,"  in  the  latter  "  quickened, 
and  raised  up,"  and  (v.  5,  6)  "  made  to  sit  together 
in  heavenly  places." 

The  former,  (12, 13)  "Strangers,  aliens,  without 
God,  without  hope,  afar  off;"  the  latter,  "made 
nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ." 

The  former,  (19)  i(  Strangers  and  foreigners;" 
the  latter,  "  fellow-citizens  with  the  saints,  and  of 
the  household  of  God." 

The  former,  (3,  1)  "children  of  wrath,  having 
their  conversation  in  the  lusts  of  the  flesh,  dead  in 
trespasses  and  sins  ;"  the  latter,  (4,  5,  10)  "  by  the 
rich  mercy  of  God,  quickened,  saved  by  grace, 
created  by  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works." 

The  whole  of  this  refers  to  the  same  thing  ;  not 
to  the  personal  condition  of  individuals  as  such,  but 
to  that  of  the  whole  body  of  Christians,  as  quicken- 
ed and  raised  from  the  moral  and  spiritual  death  of 


47 

their  original  Jewish  and  heathen  state  ;  as  deliver- 
ed from  the  state  of  wrath,  in  which  they  had  lived 
from  their  birth ;  and,  by  the  rich  mercy  of  God 
and  the  faith  of  the  Gospel,  made  to  sit  together  in 
heavenly  places,  that  is,  to  enjoy  all  the  privileges 
and  hopes  of  Christians. 

It  has  no  reference  therefore  to  the  state  in 
which  persons  are  born  into  the  world  in  all  ages. 
Those  now  born  into  the  world,  in  Christian  lands, 
are  not  in  the  same  sense  that  these  Ephesians 
were,  children  of  wrath  by  nature,  but  as  these 
same  Ephesians  were,  after  their  conversion  to 
Christianity,  saved  by  the  grace  of  God,  quickened, 
raised  from  the  dead,  made  nigh  by  the  blood  of 
Christ,  fellow-citizens  with  the  saints,  of  the  house- 
hold of  God. 

All  this  language  was  applied  to  the  Ephesians 
universally  after  their  conversion,  and  all  of  it  is  as 
applicable  universally  now  to  those,  who  are  Chris- 
tians by  birth,  as  distinguished  from  those,  who  are 
heathen  by  birth. 

The  phrase  we  are  considering  then  must  be 
seen  to  be  wholly  inapplicable  to  the  purpose  for 
which  it  is  alleged. 

We  are  called  upon  by  the  advocates  for  the 
doctrine  of  depravity  to  show,  that  it  is  inconsistent 
with  the  moral  perfection  of  God  ;  that  it  is  not 
taught  in  the  scriptures  ;  and  that  all  the  wickedness 
in  the  world  may  be  accounted  for  without  admitting 
the  doctrine. 

With  respect  to  the  first,  I  might  satisfy  myself 
with  saying,  that  it  belongs  to  those,  who  maintain 


48 

the  doctrine,  to  prove  its  consistency  with  the  moral 
perfection  of  God.  But  I  have  no  wish  to  avail 
myself  of  the  right,  which  every  one  has,  who  is 
called  upon  to  prove  a  negative,  of  throwing  back 
the  burden  of  proof.  It  is  one  of  the  cases  in  which 
the  negative  is  susceptible  of  satisfactory  proof. 

When  we  charge  the  common  doctrine  of  de- 
pravity with  being  inconsistent  with  the  moral 
character  of  God,  it  is,  as  taken  in  connexion  with 
the  rest  of  the  system,  of  which  it  makes  a  part.  It 
is  the  whole  system  together,  that  we  maintain  is 
incapable  of  being  defended  in  consistency  with 
the  moral  attributes  of  the  Author  of  our  being. 
Whatever  the  nature  of  man  be,  it  is  such  as  he 
received  at  the  hand  of  his  Maker.  Whatever 
tendency  and  proneness  to  evil  there  may  be  in  him, 
as  he  is  born  into  the  world,  it  is  no  greater  than 
his  Maker  gave  him.  We  assert  then  that  no  guilt, 
no  fault  can  be  attributed  to  him  by  his  Maker  for 
such  proneness.  If  God  be  a  just  being,  he  cannot 
be  displeased  with  him  for  being  what  he  made  him. 
If  he  be  a  good  being,  he  cannot  punish  him  for  it. 
To  subject  him  to  penal  evils  for  a  propensity  to  sin, 
born  with  him  in  consequence  of  his  descent  from  a 
sinful  ancestor,  is  not  the  less  cruel  and  unjust  for 
his  being  voluntary  in  following  that  propensity, 
unless  he  had  also  the  natural  or  communicated 
power  to  resist  it.  If  he  have  that  power,  then  he 
becomes  guilty  and  deserving  of  punishment,  so  soon 
as  in  the  indulgence  of  the  propensity  he  actually 
becomes  a  sinner,  but  no  sooner.  Till  then,  even 
on  tjie  supposition  above,  no  guilt  is  incurred.  The 


49 

propensity  itself  is  no   sin,  and   implies  no   guilt. 
And  afterward  the  justice  of  his  subjection  to  penal 
evils   depends    on   his   power  of  being  and  acting 
otherwise  than  he  does.     Had   he  no  power  to  be, 
to  feel,  and  to  act  otherwise  than  he  does,  he   could 
not  be  guilty  and  deserving  of  punishment  for  con- 
tinuing in  his    present  state.     But  according  to  the 
scheme,  which  assumes  to    be    that   of  Orthodoxy, 
those  who   are   the  subjects  of  this   innate  moral 
depravity,  inclination   to   evil,  and  wholly  ii  wrong 
state  of  the  moral   affections  and  actions,"  (p.  31) 
are    utterly  incapable   of  doing   any  thing   toward 
producing  in  themselves   a  moral  change,   or  which 
shall  be  a  reason  with  God  for  granting  to  them  that 
grace,    which   is   necessary  to   their   regeneration 
and  sanctification.     It  is   only  the  irresistible  influ- 
ence   of  the    spirit   of  God,  which  can  renew  and 
change  their  nature.       Now  we   assert,   that  until 
this   grace   has  been  imparted  and  resisted,  there 
can  be  no  blame-worthiness.      Beings  so   situated 
may  be  the  objects    of  pity  to  the  Author  of  their 
being,  and  his  pity  may  be  manifested  in  bringing 
suffering  upon  them   in  the  way  of  discipline,  for 
the  purpose  of  promoting   their   renovation,    and 
bringing  them  to  a  state  of  holiness  :  but  it  cannot  be 
inflicted  by  a  just  being  as  punishment.     Now,  if  I 
rightly  understand  the  scheme  of  Calvinism,  divine 
punishments   are   not,    according   to    that  scheme, 
disciplinary,    but   vindictive.       God  punishes   his 
offending   creatures,    not   to   reform    them,  but  to 
vindicate    his    authority.       The    sufferings    of  the 
wicked  have  no  tendencv  to  reform,  but  rather  to 


50 

harden  and  confirm  them  in  their  opposition  to  God 
and  their  duty. 

Now,  however  consistent  with  justice  may  be 
the  infliction  of  vindictive  punishment,  where  it  is 
in  the  power  of  the  subject  of  it  to  be  different  from 
what  he  is,  and  to  act  otherwise  than  he  does ;  it  is 
contended  that  it  cannot  be  so,  where  the  guilt  to 
be  punished  is  inbred,  a  part  of  man's  original  na- 
ture, such  as  he  came  from  the  Creator's  hands  ; 
where,  in  fact,  the  sinner  is  as  his  Maker  sent  him 
into  the  world,  not  as  he  has  made  himself  by  his 
own  act,  by  the  abuse,  or  neglect,  or  perversion  of 
his  power,  and  his  faculties  and  affections. 

That  the  doctrine  is  not  contained  in  the  scrip- 
tures I  have  endeavoured  to  show,  by  showing  the 
insufficiency  of  the  several  texts  from  the  Old  and 
New  Testament,  on  which  Dr.  Woods  relies  for  its 
support ;  and  that  they  admit  of  a  satisfactory  in- 
terpretation, which  gives  no  countenance  to  it.  I 
know  very  well,  that  these  are  not  the  only  texts 
which  are  supposed  to  relate  to  the  subject ;  but  I 
do  not  know  that  any  others  are  thought  to  have 
more  weight,  or  to  present  greater  difficulties.  I 
have  limited  myself  to  these,  solely  from  a  wish  not 
to  extend  the  discussion  beyond  what  was  rendered 
necessary,  by  the  course  pursued  by  Dr.  Woods  ; 
and  presuming  that  the  texts,  which  he  has  selected, 
were  those  on  which  he  would  place  his  chief  reli- 
ance. 

When  the  extent  and  prevalence  of  wickedness 
in  the  world  are  urged  as  indicating  an  original  in- 
herent corruption,  and  we  are  called   upon   to  ac- 


51 

count  for  it  in  a  satisfactory  manner,  without  ad- 
mitting the  orthodox  doctrine  of  depravity,  I  shall 
think  it  sufficient  to  refer  you  to  the  account  which 
I  have  given  of  our  moral  constitution,  and  the 
state  of  trial  in  which  we  are  placed.  Being,  by 
the  whole  of  our  nature  and  condition,  equally 
capable  of  virtue  and  of  vice,  of  a  right  and  of  a 
wrong  course ;  it  is  no  more  difficult  to  account  for 
the  actual  existence  of  the  highest,  than  of  the  lowest 
degree  of  either.  But  I  have  also  another  consid- 
eration to  suggest.  It  will  not,  I  suppose,  be  pre- 
tended, that  our  first  parents  were,  previous  to 
their  fall,  subjects  of  the  same  moral  depravity, 
which  is  attributed  to  their  descendants.  It  will 
be  admitted  that  they  were  created  innocent  and 
pure,  "  in  the  image  of  God  in  righteousness  and 
holiness  ;  yet  they  became  sinners.  Now  it  belongs 
to  him,  who  urges  the  wickedness  of  mankind  as  a 
proof  of  innate  original  depravity,  to  account  for 
the  sin  of  our  first  parents,  who  are  admitted  to 
have  been  created,  not  only  in  a  state  of  innocence, 
but  of  positive  holiness. 

I  have  one  only  remark  more,  which  I  wish  to 
make  in  conclusion  upon  this  subject.  The  doctrine, 
which  I  have  been  considering  in  this  letter,  Dr. 
Woods  styles,  (p.  31)  his  "  humbling  conclusion." 
In  this  he  intimates,  what  is  often  more  distinctly 
expressed  by  orthodox  writers,  that  the  doctrine  is 
of  a  more  humbling  nature,  more  expressive  of  self- 
abasement,  and  of  a  sense  of  human  demerit  and 
unworthiness,  than  that  which  declares  our  nature 
to  be  originally  pure,  innocent,  free  from  enmity  to 


52 

God,  and  I'roin  an  inclination  only  to  evil.  Bui 
with  how  little  justice  this  is  claimed,  I  am  persuad- 
ed you  will  be  convinced,  by  a  moment's  reflection. 
Can  that  be  thought  a  more  humbling  doctrine, 
which  traces  all  our  wicked  actions  up  to  an  original 
constitution,  given  us  at  first  by  our  Maker,  and  a 
depravity  of  nature  which  he  gave  us  when  he  gave 
us  being  ;  than  that  which  attributes  all  our  sins  to 
our  own  neglect,  and  abuse,  and  perversion  of  the 
gifts  of  God  ?  We  have  certainly  no  cause  to  feel 
ourselves  humbled  under  a  sense  of  any  thing  that 
we  are  by  nature.  We  have  occasion  to  be  ashamed 
only  of  what  we  have  become  by  practice.  For  the 
nature  God  has  given  us  no  sentiment  but  that  of 
gratitude  is  due.  Humility  and  self-condemnation 
should  spring  only  from  the  consciousness  of  a 
course  of  life  not  answering  to  the  powers,  and  fac- 
ulties, and  privileges  of  our  nature.  What  God 
has  made  us,  we  should  think  of  with  unmingkd 
satisfaction  ;  what  we  have  made  ourselves,  we 
cannot  think  of  with  too  deep  regret,  and  sorrow, 
and  shame. 


Otj 


LETTER  IV. 


In  the  system  of  Orthodoxy  defended  by  Dr. 
Woods,  the  doctrine  of  Election  stands  in  immediate 
and  close  connexion  with  that  of  the  total  depravity 
of  human  nature,  and  is  brought  forward  by  him 
the  next  in  order.  He  seems  to  enter  upon  the 
discussion  of  this  subject  with  the  impression,  that 
he  has  strong  prepossessions  to  encounter,  and  that 
these  prepossessions  are  not  without  foundation. 
"  I  acknowledge,"  he  says  (p.  52)  "  that  orthodox 
writers  and  preachers  of  high  repute,  but  deficient 
in  judgment,  have,  in  some  instances,  exhibited  the 
doctrine  in  a  manner,  which  has  given  too  much 
occasion  for  these  prepossessions ;  and  too  much 
occasion  for  this  author  [Mr.  Channing]  to  think, 
that  the  doctrine  is  inconsistent  with  the  moral 
perfection  of  God."  Again,  (p.  63)  "  orthodox 
writers  have  not  unfrequently  made  use  of  expres- 
sions, which,  at  first  view,  may  seem  to  furnish 
occasion  for  some  of  the  heavy  charges  brought 
against  us  by  our  opposers.  But  for  the  rash, 
unqualified  expressions  of  men,  who  have  become 
hot  and  violent  by  controversy,  we  are  not  to  be 
held  responsible.  We  here  enter  our  solemn  pro- 
test against  the  language,  which  has  sometimes  been 
employed,  and  the  conceptions  which  have  some- 
times been  entertained  on  this  subject  by  men,  who 
have  been  denominated  Calvinists."  Again,  (p.  79) 
"  I  am  willing  to  concede,  that  those  views  of  the 

doctrine  of  Election,   against    which    Whitby   and 
7 


54 

many  other  respectable  writers  direct  their  princi- 
pal arguments,  are  justly  liable  to  objection."  From 
these  passages  one  might  be  led  to  suppose,  that 
those,  whose  opinions  Dr.  Woods  professes  to  rep- 
resent, maintain  the  doctrine  of  Election  in  some 
qualified  sense,  and  not  as  it  is  to  be  found  in  the 
popular  writers,  and  confessions.  And  in  this  he 
would  be  confirmed  by  the  statement  at  the  close  of 
the  discussion,  (p.  81)  "  You  now  see  what  we  mean 
by  the  doctrine  of  Election,  and  in  what  manner  we 
believe  it.  As  the  result  of  his  own  unsearchable 
wisdom  and  grace,  and  for  reasons  which  relate  to  the 
great  ends  of  his  administration,  God  eternally  pur- 
posed to  save  a  great  number  of  our  race,  and  pur- 
posed to  save  them  precisely  in  the  manner  in  which 
he  actually  does  save  them."  From  this  form  of  the 
doctrine,  I  presume  no  Unitarian  would  dissent ; 
and  were  there  nothing  in  the  Letters  of  Dr.  Woods 
to  show  that  the  orthodox  faith  is  something  more 
than  is  here  expressed,  one  would  have  supposed 
he  might  have  been  spared  the  labour  of  any  formal 
defence  of  it  against  objection,  and  all  that  solicitude 
which  he  seems  to  have  felt,  "  in  disclosing  to  his 
readers  with  the  utmost  frankness  his  inmost 
thoughts  upon  the  subject."  (p.  82.) 

If  this  is  a  complete  statement  of  the  doctrine  of 
Election,  as  it  is  understood  by  the  Orthodox,  and 
if  Dr.  WToods  and  those  whom  he  represents,  and 
for  whom  he  professes  to  speak,  do  not  maintain  the 
opinions  against  which  the  Sermon  of  Mr.  Chan- 
ning  is  directed,  there  seems  to  have  been  no  good 
reason,  why  he  should  feel  himself  concerned  at  all 


55 

in  the  charge.  Calvinists  only,  vyho  do  maintain 
them,  can  fairly  consider  their  opinions  as  attacked, 
and  themselves  called  upon  to  defend  them. 

But  Dr.  Woods  has  no  where  informed  us,  who 
those  "  orthodox  writers  of  high  repute"  are,  who 
have  exposed  the  doctrine  to  objection  by  their 
injudicious  exhibitions  of  it ;  nor  has  he  told  us  in 
what  respects  they  have  given  a  false  representa- 
tion of  it.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  he  did  not  think 
it  necessary  to  do  this,  as  he  must  perceive  how 
much  it  is  calculated  to  perplex,  and  how  much  it 
may  mislead,  his  readers.  For,  as  a  simple  state- 
ment drawn  from  the  several  parts  of  his  letters  will 
show,  it  cannot  have  been  his  design  to  express  his 
dissent  from  the  doctrine  of  Election  as  expressed 
in  the  strongest  language  of  orthodox  writers  ;  but 
only  to  guard  against  the  impression,  which  he 
supposes  the  strong  and  naked  statement  of  it  may 
be  likely  to  make. 

The  following  is  the  statement  of  this  doctrine 
by  the  Westminster  Divines,  as  it  stands  in  their 
Confession  of  Faith,  and  more  briefly  in  the  As- 
sembly's Catechism. 

"  God  did  from  all  eternity  freely  and  un- 
changeably ordain  whatsoever  comes  to  pass." 

"  By  the  decree  of  God  some  men  and  angels 
arc  predestinated  unto  everlasting  life,  and  others 
fore-ordained  to  everlasting  death." 

"  These  angels  and  men,  thus  predestinated  and 
fore-ordained,  are  particularly  and  unchangeably 
designed,  and  their  number  so  certain  and  definite, 
that  it  cannot  be  either  increased  or  diminished.''" 


56 

"Those  of  mankind  that  are  predestinated  unto 
life,  God,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  was 
laid,  according  to  his  eternal  and  immutable  pur- 
pose, and  the  secret  counsel  and  good  pleasure  of 
his  will,  hath  chosen  in  Christ  unto  everlasting 
glory,  out  of  his  mere  free  grace  and  love,  without 
any  foresight  of  faith  or  good  works,  or  persever- 
ance in  either  of  them,  or  any  other  thing,  in  the 
creature,  as  conditions  or  causes,  moving  him  there- 
unto." 

u  As  God  hath  appointed  the  elect  unto  glory, 
so  hath  he,  by  the  eternal  and  most  free  purpose 
of  his  will,  fore-ordained  all  the  means  thereunto. 
Wherefore,  they  who  are  elected,  being  fallen  in 
Adam,  are  redeemed  by  Christ,  are  eifectually 
called  unto  faith  in  Christ,  &c.  Neither  are  any 
other  redeemed  by  Christ,  eifectually  called,  &c. 
but  the  elect  only." 

"  The  rest  of  mankind  God  was  pleased,  ac- 
cording to  the  unsearchable  counsel  of  his  own  will, 
whereby  he  extendeth  or  withholdeth  mercy,  as  he 
pleaseth,  to  pass  by,  and  to  ordain  them  to  dishonour 
and  wrath  for  their  sin." 

I  will  now  place  before  you,  in  the  best  manner 
I  am  able,  such  a  view  of  Dr.  Woods'  opinions  upon 
the  subject,  as  is  to  be  found  in  scattered  passages 
through  his  seventh  and  eighth  letters. 

"  The  Father  has  given  to  Christ  a  part  of  the 
human  race,  and  those,  who  have  thus  been  given 
to  Christ,  are  the  persons,  who  shall  have  eternal 
life  ;"  (p.  54)  and  this,  he  goes  on  to  prove  at  large, 
"denotes  all  -who  shall  finally  lesavedP  (p.  55.) 


57 

**  In  every  case,  a  person's  being  given  to 
Christ  secures  his  coming  to  Christ  ;  and,  when 
Christ  speaks  of  those,  who  were  given  him  of  the 
Father,  he  includes  the  whole  number  that  shall  be 
saved."  (p.  56.) 

(i  God  has  a  purpose,  choice,  will,  and  good 
pleasure,  respecting  those  who  are  saved  ;  &  purpose 
or  choice,  which  was  in  the  mind  of  God  before  they 
existed  ;  a  purpose,  which  does  not  rest  upon  any 
personal  merit  in  those,  who  are  its  objects ;  of 
grace,  excluding  all  works  of  righteousness  from 
having  any  concern  in  this  subject."  (p.  57.) 

u  Nothing  is  effected  by  the  efforts  of  man,  but 
every  thing  depends  on  the  mercy  of  God."  (p.  59.) 

"  The  sovereign  purpose  of  God  relates  to 
man's  eternal  interests,  to  their  religious  character 

and  salvation." "  I  could,    as  I   think,   make  it 

appear,  that  the  doctrine  of  God's  sovereign  Election 
is  the  only  doctrine,  which  accounts  satisfactorily  for 
the  actual  difference,  which  exists  between  true 
believers,  and  the  rest  of  the  world."  (pp.  61,  62.) 

"  We  hold  it  as  a  fact,  universally,  that  impeni- 
tent, unrenewed  sinners  do  no  good  work,  which 
God  regards  as  a  condition  of  their  being  renewed, 
or  on  account  of  which  he  has  promised  them  re- 
generation :  that,  in  all  cases,  he  calls  and  renews 
them  according  to  his  own  purpose  and  grace." 
(pp.  67,  68.)    ' 

"  We  believe  that  those,  who  are  chosen  of  God 
to  salvation,  are  not  chosen  because  they  were,  in 
themselves,   more   worthy  of    this    blessing    than 


58 

ethers,  that  God  looked  upon  their  moral  feelings 
and  conduct  with  the  same  disapprobation,  and  had 
the  same  view  of  their  ill  desert,  and  that  he  chose 
them,  as  we  may  say,  for  reasons  of  state  ;  for  gen- 
eral reasons  in  his  government,  which  he  has  not 
revealed."...."  The  purpose  and  administration  of 
God  are,  in  this  respect,  different  from  what  our 
wisdom  would  dictate,  or  our  affections  choose ; 
they  cannot  be  accounted  for  by  any  principles 
known  to  us,  but  result  from  the  infinite  perfection 
of  God,  and  are  conformed  to  reasons,  which  he  has 
concealed  in  his  own  mind.77  (p.  74.) 

If  you  will  compare  these  passages  with  those 
before  quoted  from  the  Westminster  Confession, 
you  will  find  that  they  differ  from  each  other  only  in 
the  degree  of  clearness  and  explicitness,  with  which 
the  same  doctrine  is  expressed. 

I  shall  now  endeavour  to  show,  that  the  "method 
of  designating  the  heirs  of  salvation,"  which  this 
doctrine  implies,  can  neither  be  reconciled  with  our 
natural  notions  of  the  moral  character  of  God,  de- 
rived from  the  use  of  the  faculties  he  has  given  us, 
and  our  observation  of  his  conduct  in  the  govern- 
ment of  the  world  ;  nor  with  what  he  has  made 
known  to  us  of  his  character,  and  purposes,  and 
government  in  the  christian  revelation. 

How  repugnant  this  doctrine  is  to  our  natural 
reason,  Dr.  Woods  himself  seems  to  be  fully  sensi- 
ble. "  If  it  were  put  to  my  natural  reason,"  he 
says,  (p.  54)  "  to  judge  by  its  own  light  respecting 
what  is  called  the  doctrine  of  Election.,  my  judgment 


59 

might  agree  with  the  judgment  of  those,  who  reject 
the  doctrine.  If  the  question  were,  what  difficulties 
attend  the  doctrine,  I  might  perhaps  bring  forward 
as  many  as  others." 

Now,  as  God  is  the  Author  of  our  being,  and  as 
that  portion  of  reason,  which  we  have,  was  given  us 
by  him  for  our  guide,  it  is  certainly  very  remarka- 
ble, and  what  we  should  not  expect,  that  instead  of 
indicating  to  us  truly  his  character,  and  dispositions, 
and  purposes,  so  far  as  it  gives  us  any  information, 
it  should  universally  mislead  us  respecting  them. 
Following  the  light  of  our  reason,  and  the  natural 
impulse  of  our  feelings,  we  find  it  impossible  to 
imagine,  that  the  Author  of  our  being,  the  common 
Parent  of  all,  can  regard  and  treat  his  offspring  in 
the  manner,  which  the  doctrine  in  question  attrib- 
utes to  him.  That,  without  any  foreseen  difference 
of  character  and  desert  in  men,  before  he  had 
brought  them  into  being,  he  should  regard  some 
with  complacency  and  love,  and  the  rest  with  dis- 
approbation, and  hatred,  and  wrath  ;  and,  without 
any  reference  to  the  future  use  or  abuse  of  their 
nature,  should  appoint  some  to  everlasting  happi- 
ness, and  the  rest  to  everlasting  misery  ;  and  that 
this  appointment,  entirely  arbitrary,  for  which  no 
reason  is  to  be  assigned,  but  his  sovereign  will, 
should  be  the  cause  and  not  the' consequence  of  the 
holiness  of  the  one,  and  of  the  defect  of  holiness  of 
the  other.  A  man,  who  should  do  what  this  doctrine 
attributes  to  God,  I  will  not  say  toward  his  own  off- 
spring, but  toward  any  beings  that  were  dependent 


60 

on  him,  and  whose  destiny  was  at  his  disposal, 
would  be  regarded  as  •  a  monster  of  malevolence, 
and  cruelty,  and  caprice.  It  is  incredible  that  the 
Author  of  our  being  should  thus  have  formed  us 
with  an  understanding  and  moral  feelings  to  lead  us 
without  fail  to  condemn  the  measures  and  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  government  of  him,  who  so  made  us. 
Will  it  be  said  that  this  repugnance  which  we 
feel  to  the  doctrine  in  question  is  one  of  the  proofs 
of  the  corruption  of  our  nature  ?  Yet  whatever  that 
nature  may  be,  it  is  such  as  he  gave  us.  And  how- 
ever imperfect  our  reason,  it  is  what  he  gave  to  be 
our  guide.  It  is  the  only  immediate  guide  he  has 
given  us  ;  and  it  is  that,  which  must  be  the  ultimate 
judge  of  the  evidence,  and  of  the  nature  and  value, 
of  any  notices  which  he  may  give  of  his  will  and 
purposes,  by  his  providence  or  his  word.  Can  it 
have  been  the  design  of  the  Apostle  to  put  down 
our  reason,  our  moral  feelings,  and  natural  con- 
science, as  seems  to  be  intimated  in  the  pamphlet, 
"  by  the  appalling  rebuke,  Who  art  thou  that  re- 
pliest  against  God  ?"  But  who  is  the  man,  that  in 
the  truest  sense  is  chargeable  with  replying  against 
God  ?  Is  it  not  he,  who  would  set  aside,  as  false 
and  dangerous,  the  guide  he  has  given  to  all  for 
the  direction  of  life  ?  Is  it  not  he,  who  refuses  to 
listen  to  the  voice,  by  which  he  speaks  to  all  ? 
Who  calls  in  question  the  notices  he  gives  of  him- 
self and  of  the  principles  of  his  government,  in  the 
only  universal  revelation  that  he  has  made  of  him- 
self?    He,  it  seems  to  me,  replies  against  God,  who 


61 

rejects  or  undervalues  the  notices,  which  he  has 
in  any  way  given  us,  of  himself  or  of  the  principles 
of  his  government.  Not  less  he,  who  refuses  to 
follow  reason  and  natural  conscience,  than  he,  who 
will  not  submit  to  the  demands  of  a  written  revela- 
tion. Not  less  he,  who  turns  his  back  upon  the 
works  of  God,  than  he,  who  closes  his  eyes  against 
his  written  word. 

But  my  objection  to  the  orthodox  doctrine  of 
Election  is  grounded  not  solely  on  its  being  irrecon- 
cileable  with  our  reason  and  moral  feelings  ;  I  find 
it  not  more  easy  to  reconcile  it  with  the  instructions 
of  the  holy  scriptures.  I  look  to  the  general  scope 
of  the  sacred  writings,  as  regards  the  disposition  of 
the  Author  of  nature  toward  his  creatures,  and  the 
principles  of  his  government ;  and  I  find  nothing  to 
support  this  doctrine,  but  much  with  which  it  seems 
to  be  wholly  incompatible.  I  ask  how  this  sovereign 
appointment  of  the  everlasting  condition  of  men, 
6i  excluding  all  works  of  righteousness,  as  having 
any  concern  in  it,"  and  with  reference  to  which. 
"  nothing  is  effected  by  the  efforts  of  men,"  can  be 
shown  to  consist  with  all  that  we  find  in  the  scrip- 
tures so  clearly  implying,  that  something  is  depend- 
ing on  the  exertions  men  will  make,  and  the  part 
they  will  act ;  for,  according  to  this  doctrine,  what 
they  are  to  be  and  how  they  are  to  act  is  determin- 
ed beforehand,  without  any  reference  to  such  ex- 
ertions ;  with  all  that  implies  the  influence  of 
motives,  since  it  is  no  such  influence  of  motive,  but 
"  God's  sovereign  election,  that  is  to  account  for  the 

actual  difference  between  true   believers,  and   the 

8 


62 

rest  of  the  world  ;"  with  all  that  implies  guilt,  ill 
desert,  blame-worthiness  in  the  unholy,  disobedient, 
and  impenitent ;  for  how  can  men  be  guilty  of  being 
what  they  were  made  to  be  ?  How  are  they  de- 
serving of  blame  for  remaining  in  that  moral  state, 
in  which  it  was  determined  by  the  sovereign  ap- 
pointment of  God,  that  they  should  remain  ?  With 
all  those  promises,  threatenings,  warnings,  admoni- 
tions, exhortations,  and  entreaties,  which  imply  in 
those,  to  whom  they  are  addressed,  a  power  of  being 
influenced ;  with  all  that  implies,  that  men  are 
capable  of  duty  and  obligation,  and  are  the  proper 
subjects  of  praise  and  blame,  and  of  reward  and 
punishment  ? 

This  charge  of  inconsistency  with  the  general 
scope  of  the  scriptures,  and  the  doctrine  every 
where  taught  or  implied  in  the  sacred  writings,  has 
never  been  removed  ;  nor  can  it  be,  I  am  persuaded, 
but  by  violating  the  plainest  principles  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  language. 

There  is  another  view,  in  which  this  doctrine  is 
at  variance  with  what  the  scriptures  every  where 
present  to  us.  I  mean  the  righteous  and  benevolent 
character  of  the  Author  of  our  being.  It  represents 
him  to  us  as  a  cruel  and  unjust  being,  exacting 
endless  punishment  for  sins  committed  in  following 
the  nature  he  had  given,  and  acting  in  pursuance  of 
his  decree.  It  represents  him,  as  arbitrary  and 
partial  in  his  distributions  ;  making  a  distinction 
the  most  momentous  that  can  be  imagined  in  his 
treatment  of  those,  between  whom  there  was  no  dif- 
ference of  character  or  of  desert  as  the  ground  of  the 


63 

distinction  ;  from  his  mere  sovereign  will  and  good 
pleasure,  ordaining  these  to  eternal  blessedness  and 
glory,  and  appointing  those  to  endless  and  hopeless 
misery.    That  it  is  the  righteous  only,  who  will  thus 
be  raised  to  glory,  and  the  wicked  only,  who  will  be 
the  subjects  of  condemnation,  will  make  no  difference 
in  the  case  ;  since,  according  to  the  doctrine  we  are 
considering,  it  is  not  merely  an  absolute  appointment 
to  salvation  on  the  one  hand,  and   to  condemnation 
on  the  other  ;  but  also  to  the  different  dispositions, 
character,  and  course    of  life,  which   are   to    have 
these  opposite  results.    Those,  and  those  only,  who 
are  ordained  to  eternal  life,  are  also  ordained  to  be 
effectually  called,  to   be  regenerated   by  irresistible 
grace,  and  thus   to    be   brought,   not  by  any  thing 
they  do,   or    can    do   themselves,  but  solely  by  the 
immediate  power  of  God,  out  of  that  state  of  sin,  in 
which  they  are  by  nature,  to  that  holiness,  which  is 
to  qualify  them  for  salvation.  The  rest  of  mankind, 
"  passed  by,  and  ordained  to  dishonour  and  wrath 
for  their  sins,"  have  that  effectual   and  irresistible 
grace  withheld  from  them,   which  was  necessary  to 
their  regeneration,  and  without  which  it  was  impos- 
sible for  them   to    attain  to   holiness  and  salvation. 
To  say,  that  those  who  are  appointed  to   salva- 
tion, are  chosen  from  among  mankind   u  for  reasons 
of  state,"  (p.  74)  is  to  say  nothing  that  is  intelligi- 
ble.    But  to    say,  that  they  are   chosen  (ib.)  "for 
reasons,  which    God    has  not   revealed  ; — reasons, 
which  he   has  concealed  in   his  own  mind ;  such  as 
cannot  be  accounted   for  by  any  principle  known  to 
us."  is  something  more. 


64 

It  is  a  position,  I  think,  unsupported  by  proof, 
and  confuted  distinctly  by  what  we  constantly  meet 
with  in  the  New  Testament.  In  the  appointment 
to  privileges,  means,  and  external  condition,  God 
has  indeed  given  no  account  of  his  motives  ;  nor 
assigned  his  reasons  for  the  infinite  variety  that 
appears.  He  has  exercised  an  absolute  sovereignty, 
of  which  no  account  is  given,  and  the  reasons  of 
which  we  are  not  competent  to  understand.  But  it 
is  clearly  otherwise  as  to  the  final  condition  of  men. 
So  far  is  that  from  being  determined  by  reasons  of 
state,  which  he  has  not  revealed,  that  the  reasons, 
upon  which  the  final  salvation  or  condemnation  of 
every  man  is  to  take  place,  are  distinctly  assigned 
by  our  Saviour  and  his  Apostles  ;  not  once  only,  but 
as  often  as  they  have  occasion  to  speak  of  the  final 
distinctions  that  are  to  be  made  between  men. 
Those  distinctions,  we  are  again  and  again  told,  are 
to  be  wholly  according  to  the  difference  of  moral 
character.  It  is  that  these  are  righteous,  and  those 
wicked  ;  these  have  done  well,  and  those  have  done 
ill ;  these  have  been  faithful,  and  those  unfaithful. 
So  far  are  the  reasons  of  the  final  distinction  to  be 
made  between  those  who  are  saved,  and  those  who 
perish,  from  being  concealed  in  the  divine  mind, 
that  nothing  is  more  distinctly  made  known.  The 
New  Testament  is  full  of  it. 

Nor  is  it  with  any  better  reason  said,  that,  "  in 
this  respect,  the  purpose  and  administration  of  God 
are  different  from  what  our  wisdom  would  dictate, 
or  our  affections  choose."''  They  are  precisely  what 
the  wisdom  and  the  affections  of  everv  man  in  theii 


65 

uncorrupted,  unperverted  state,  would  approve  and 
concur  in.  And  they  are  accounted  for  by  principles 
well  known  to  us  ;  principles  of  eternal  and  immuta- 
ble justice.  Not  reasons  which  he  has  concealed 
in  his  own  mind,  but  such  as  he  has  made  us  per- 
fectly capable  of  understanding  ;  and  such  as  he  has 
clearly  revealed  to  us  in  his  word. 

But,  though  the  general  tenor  of  scripture  seems 
so  foreign  from  the  doctrine  we  are  considering,  and. 
not  easily  reconciled  with  it,  there  are  particular 
texts  in  which  it  is  thought  to  be  expressly  taught, 
or  so  clearly  implied,  that  their  force  cannot  be 
evaded. 

The  first  text  alleged  by  Professor  Woods,  in  the 
pamphlet  before  me,  is  (John  xvii.  2)  "  That  he 
should  give  eternal  life  to  as  many  as  thou  hast 
given  him,"  and  (John  vi.  37,  39)  "  All  that  the 
Father  giveth  me  shall  come  to  me,  and  him  that 
cometh  to  me  I  will  in  no  wise  cast  out.  And  this 
is  the  Father's  will,  who  sent  me,  that  of  all  which 
he  hath  given  me,  I  should  lose  nothing,  but  should 
raise  it  up  at  the  last  day." 

With  respect  to  the  first  of  these,  it  cannot  have 
been  our  Saviour's  intention  to  declare,  that  a  cer- 
tain, definite  number  of  mankind  were  appointed  by 
the  Father  to  receive  the  benefit  of  his  mediation 
and  sacrifice,  and  obtain  salvation,  exclusive  of  all 
others ;  and  without  any  thing  in  them,  as  the 
ground  of  this  preference  and  choice,  for  the  reasons 
that  follow. 

In  the  discourse  with  his  disciples,  (eh.  xv.) 
which    stands   in   immediate   connexion    with   the 


66 

prayer,  of  which  this  text  is  a  part,  he  addresses 
the  same  persons,  of  whom  he  here  speaks  as 
"  given  him  of  the  Father,"  in  language  implying, 
that  they  might  "  abide  in  him,  and  bring  forth 
much  fruit,"  or,  failing  to  abide  in  him,  might  be 
"  taken  away,  cast  forth,  cast  into  the  fire  and 
burned."  As  those  who,  though  chosen  and  or- 
dained, might  or  might  not  keep  the  commands, 
and  abide  in  the  love  of  him,  who  had  thus  chosen 
and  ordained  them.  But,  according  to  the  doctrine 
in  question,  there  could  be  no  such  contingency  in 
the  case.  All  who  are  thus  given,  chosen,  ordained, 
and  those  only,  are  to  bring  forth  fruit,  to  keep  his 
commands,  to  abide  in  his  love,  to  have  eternal  life. 
In  this  same  discourse,  again,  (ch.  xvi.  27)  we 
meet  with  the  following  sentence.  "  For  the  Father 
himself  loveth  you,  because  ye  have  loved  me,  and 
have  believed  that  I  came  out  from  God."  Here 
the  love  of  God  is  represented,  not  as  the  cause,  but 
the  consequence,  of  the  faith  and  love  of  the  disci- 
ples, and  the  plain  and  obvious  meaning  of  the 
texts  in  question,  in  their  connexion  with  this  is, 
that  they  were  given  to  Christ,  not  by  an  arbitrary 
selection  of  them  from  the  mass  of  Jews,  without 
any  thing  in  their  character  and  disposition  leading 
to  the  choice  ;  but,  because  they  were  seen  to  be 
fit  subjects  for  the  kingdom  of  God,  ready  to  receive 
the  faith  of  the  Gospel  when  offered  to  them,  hav- 
ing already  something  of  the  christian  disposition 
and  character,  already  manifesting  an  obedient 
temper,  as  expressed  (ch.  xvii.  6,)  they  were  already 
children  of  God,  and  were  given   to   Christ,  and 


67 

came  to  him,  because  they  were  God's  in  a  sense, 
in  which  the  rest  of  the  world  were  not ;  and  were 
then  chosen,  and  ordained  to  partake  in  the  final 
benefits  of  the  Gospel,  because  of  their  faith  and 
fidelity.  This  interpretation  renders  the  whole 
discourse,  and  the  following  prayer,  consistent 
throughout  in  the  several  parts,  and  consistent  with 
the  moral  character  of  God,  and  the  moral  state  of 
man,  as  a  free  and  accountable  being.  With  the 
other  interpretation,  I  do  not  perceive  how  the  text* 
that  have  been  mentioned  can  be  fairly  reconciled. 
If,  by  those  given  to  Christ,  we  are  to  understand, 
as  Dr.  Woods  asserts,  (p.  54)  u  a  certain  part  of 
the  human  race,  who  are  to  have  eternal  life,  and 
those,  denoting  all,  to  whom  Christ  will  actually 
give  eternal  life,"  and  as  his  argument  requires, 
and  as  he  elsewhere  states  with  sufficient  distinct- 
ness, this  choice  and  appointment  to  Christian  faith, 
obedience,  and  eternal  life,  is  wholly  independent 
of  any  thing  in  them  as  the  ground  of  this  distinc- 
tion from  the  rest  of  the  world,  it  is  impossible  to 
see  with  what  propriety  it  could  be  said,  that 
"  God  loved  them,  because  of  their  faith  and  love 
to  Christ,"  for  his  distinguishing  love  was,  by  that 
supposition,  the  cause  of  their  faith,  &c.;  or  how 
any  intimations  could  be  given,  that  something  was 
yet  depending  upon  themselves ;  that  it  yet  de- 
pended on  themselves,  whether  they  should  abide 
in  Christ,  keep  his  commandments,  continue  in  his 
love,  and  share  in  the  great  salvation ;  for  the  ap- 
pointment to  all  this  was  absolute,  and  without  any 
condition  on  their  part,  as  the  ground  of  it.  Besides, 


68 

I  observe  that  other  language  of  our  Saviour  in  the 
discourses  recorded  by  this  same  Evangelist,  is 
equally  favourable  to  the  supposition,  "  that  coming 
to  Christ,  believing  on  him,  and  having  eternal 
life,  are  events,  not  flowing  from  a  sovereign  uncon- 
ditional appointment,  but  the  result  of  a  faithful 
use  of  means,  in  the  exercise  of  a  right  disposition  ; 
and  that  the  difference  of  character  thus  appearing 
between  them,  and  others  who  neglect  to  come,  who 
refuse  to  believe  and  obey,  and  fail  of  eternal  life, 
is  the  ground  and  not  the  consequence  of  their 
being  chosen,  given  to  Christ,  and  ordained  to 
eternal  life.  Thus,  (John  iii.  19)  the  ground  of 
men's  condemnation  is,  not  an  irrespective  decree 
of  God,  "  but  their  hating  the  light,  loving  the 
darkness,  because  their  deeds  are  evil."  It  is  their 
being  in  character  and  disposition  opposite  to  those, 
who  escape  the  condemnation,  because  they  do  the 
truth,  and  willingly  come  to  the  light. 

Thus  it  is,  that  the  reason  assigned,  and,  as  is 
clearly  implied,  the  criminal  reason  why  the  unbe- 
lieving Jews  rejected  the  Gospel  (John  v.  40)  was, 
not  that  they  were  ordained  to  this  condemnation 
without  any  thing  in  them,  by  which  they  were  dis- 
tinguished from  those,  who  accepted  the  invitation ; 
but  because  they  wilfully  rejected  the  Gospel,  and 
refused  the  eternal  life  it  offered.  ei  Ye  will  not 
come  unto  me,  that  ye  might  have  life.77  Again, 
the  same  great  moral  ground  of  distinction  ap- 
pears in  the  declaration,  (John  vii.  17)  "  If  any 
man  will  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine, 
whether  it  be  of   God."     Those,  who  are  given  to 


69 

Christ,  chosen,  ordained,  who  are  to  know  of  his 
doctrine,  to  believe  in  him,  and  thus  to  obtain 
eternal  life,  are  those,  who  are  well  disposed  to  it, 
who  have  an  obedient  temper,  who  are  willing  to 
do  his  will. 

The  observations  which  have  been  applied  to 
this  text  are  equally  applicable  to  the  other  text 
under  consideration.  (John  vi.  27)  (i  All  that  the 
Father  giveth  me  shall  come  to  me  ;"  that  is,  those 
only  are  given  to  him  of  the  Father,  those  only  are 
to  receive  the  final  blessings  of  the  Gospel,  who 
come  to  Christ.  It  was  so  when  the  Gospel  was 
first  promulgated.  The  humble,  the  pious,  the 
teachable  received  the  Gospel ;  all  those  who  were 
of  God.  The  proud,  the  irreligious  rejected  it  ; 
those  who  were  not  of  God,  but  of  the  world.  It 
has  been  so  in  every  subsequent  age. 

And  none  of  those  who  thus  come,  bringing  with 
them  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  abiding  in  it,  and 
bringing  forth  the  fruits  of  righteousness,  none  of 
these  will  he  cast  off.  Of  all  those,  thus  given  to 
him,  thus  coming  to  him,  thus  abiding  in  him,  thus 
bringing  forth  fruit,  it  is  the  Father's  will  that  he 
should  lose  nothing. 

From  this  expression  in  the  text,  however,  as 
well  as  the  other,  an  unwarrantable  inference  is 
probably  drawn  ;  that  of  the  absolute  certainty  of 
the  final  salvation  of  all  those  persons,  concerning 
whom  it  is  spoken.  But  this  form  of  words  was 
evidently  intended  to  express,  not  the  particular 
decree,  but  the  general  purpose  of  heaven ;  not  the 
specific  effect,  which  is  without  fail  to  be  produced, 
9 


70 

but  the  object  and  design  of  the  divine  dispensa- 
tion ;  to  be  understood  with  similar  limitations  with 
those,  which  we  apply  to  the  expression,  (1  Tim.  ii. 
4)  "  who  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved."     Not  that 
every  human  being  will  be   actually  saved,   in  the 
sense  in  which  saved  is  here  used,  but  that  the  sal- 
vation of  all  was   the   object   and  design  ;  that  the 
offer  of  it  was  made  to  all,  an  offer  which  yet  might 
be   rejected.      Again,    (Col.   i.   23)    "  the   gospel, 
which  was  preached  to  every  creature  which  is  un- 
der heaven."    Here  the  literal  meaning  of  the  sen- 
tence is  not  the  true  meaning.     The  Gospel  had  not 
been  preached  to    every  living   creature.     But  the 
direction  of  the  Saviour  to  his  disciples  was  to  preach 
it  to  every  creature,  that  is,  to  all  men.   It  was  intend- 
ed in  general  for  all.      None  were   excepted  in  the 
commission  ;  none  were  passed  by  in  the  execution. 
As  far  as  the  design   of  the   commission   had   been 
accomplished,  it   had  been  done   agreeably  to  the 
direction  of  the  Saviour.     To  these  instances  many 
others  might  be   added  to  show,  that  expressions  of 
universal  import  are  often,  as  in  the  text  in  question, 
to  be  interpreted  only  in  a  general  sense  ;  and   that 
they  are  frequently  used  to  express,  not  an  absolute 
decree,  but  a  purpose   or  design  depending  on  con- 
tingences,  and  which  may  in  fact  be  either  univer- 
sal or  only  general.       And  that  the  example  we  are 
considering  is  clearly  of  this  kind,  and  that  it  does 
not  warrant  the  use,  that  has  been   made  of  it,  we 
have  the  farther  positive  proof  in  this  circumstance  ; 
that  notwithstanding  this  unqualified  expression,  one 
of  the  persons  given  to  Christ  had  been  lost.  "  Those 


71 

that  thou  gavest  me  I  have  kept,  and  none  of  them 
is  lost,  but  the  son  of  perdition."  The  son  of  per- 
dition, it  is  here  elearly  implied,  had  been  given  to 
Christ  in  the  sense  of  the  passage,  and  yet  had  been 
lost.  The  declaration  then,  "  It  is  the  Father's 
will  that  he  should  lose  nothing,"  is  manifestly  de- 
signed to  express,  not  a  specific  personal  decree, 
but  the  general  purpose  and  design. 

The  next  passage  quoted  by  Dr.  Woods  to  prove 
an  absolute  personal  election  to  salvation  is  Ephe- 
sians  i.  3 — 11.  "  Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father," 
&c.  To  all  the  observations  made  by  Dr.  Woods 
on  this  passage,  I  give  my  entire  concurrence  ;  yet 
have  no  hesitation  in  asserting,  what  I  hope  satis- 
factorily to  prove,  that  it  has  no  relation  to  the  doc- 
trine, which  he  has  brought  it  to  support. 

It  refers  not  to  individuals  as  such,  but  to  the 
Christian  community.  Not  to  final  salvation,  but 
to  Christian  privileges.  In  the  first  place,  the 
Epistle  is  addressed  to  the  whole  Christian  commu- 
nity at  Ephesus,  without  any  intimation,  that  any 
expressions  in  it  are  applicable  to  some  and  not  to 
others.  The  terms  mints  and  faithful  in  Christ 
Jesus,  (ver.  1)  are  applied  alike  to  all,  and  are  evi- 
dently to  be  understood  as  terms  which  designate 
the  whole  company  of  believers,  and  external  pro- 
fessors, without  any  reference  to  the  personal  char- 
acter of  any,  as  individuals.  It  is  again,  in  the 
name  of  the  whole  Christian  community,  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  that  the  Apostle  speaks,  when  he  says, 
that  "  God  hath  blessed  us  with  all  spiritual  bless- 
ings, chosen  us  in  him  [that  is,   Christ]    before  the 


72 

foundation  of  the  world,  predestinated  us  to  the 
adoption  of  children,  predestinated  us  according  to 
the  purpose  of  him,  who  worketh  all  things  after 
the  counsel  of  his  own  will."  (ver.  3,  4,  5,  11) 
That  this  choice  or  predestination  was  not  that  of 
individuals  to  eternal  life>  but  of  all,  who  received 
the  christian  faith,  to  the  profession  and  privileges 
of  the  Gospel,  (besides  its  being  thus  generally  ad- 
dressed, and  in  the  name  of  Christians  at  large  and 
universally)  appears  still  further  from  other  ex- 
pressions, addressed  in  the  same  manner.  It  is  for 
these  same  persons,  saints,  faithful,  chosen,  predes- 
tinated, that  the  Apostle  thought  it  needful  very 
devoutly  and  earnestly  to  pray  to  God,  "  that  they 
might  be  strengthened  with  might  by  his  spirit  in 
the  inner  man,  that  Christ  might  dwell  in  their 
hearts  by  faith,  that  they  might  be  rooted  and 
grounded  in  love  ;"  very  suitable  to  be  addressed 
to  professed  believers  as  a  promiscuous  body  :  but 
such  as  we  should  hardly  expect,  if  the  persons  de- 
signated were  by  the  very  designation  understood 
to  consist  only  of  persons  certainly  chosen  to  eter- 
nal life,  and  were  already  certainly  grounded  in 
love,  were  already  strengthened  in  the  inner  man, 
had  already  Christ  dwelling  in  their  hearts  by  love. 
Further,  these  same  persons,  he  thinks  it  proper 
to  exhort,  (ch.  iv.  1)  "to  walk  worthy  of  the  voca- 
tion with  which  they  were  called,"  "to  walk  hence- 
forth, not  as  other  Gentiles  walk,"  (ver.  17)  "but  to 
put  off,  concerning  the  former  conversation,  the  old 
man,  which  is  corrupt  according  to  the  deceitful 
lusts,  and  to  be  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  their  mind, 


73 

and  to  put  on  the  new  man,  which  after  God  is  creat- 
ed in  righteousness  and  true  holiness/'  and  "  not  to 
grieve  the  holy  spirit  of  God."  (ver.  22,  23,  24, 
30.)  Implying  that  they  are  liable  to  retain  still 
their  heathen  character,  notwithstanding  their 
Christian  profession  ;  that  they  may  still  pursue 
the  former  conversation,  which,  by  their  pro- 
fession, they  have  renounced  ;  that  they  are  in 
danger  of  failing  to  put  off  the  old  man,  and  to  be, 
as  their  Christian  profession  requires,  "  renewed  in 
righteousness  and  true  holiness  ;"  that  they  finally 
may,  instead  of  following  the  guidance  of  the  spirit 
of  God,  grieve  it.  Very  suitable,  therefore,  to  be 
addressed  to  the  promiscuous  body  of  professing 
Christians  ;  very  suitable  if  by  saints,  chosen,  pre- 
destinated, this  only  were  meant  ;  but  certainly  not 
so,  if  by  these  terms  were  designated  persons  chosen 
from  eternity  to  final  salvation,  and  already  saints 
and  faithful  in  the  highest  and  literal  sense  of  the 
words.  Such,  as  distinguished  from  the  rest  of  the 
world,  are  not  the  proper  subjects  of  exhortation  to 
walk  worthy  of  their  Christian  vocation ;  for  the  very 
terms  applied  to  them  imply  that  they  cannot  fail 
to  do  so  ;  being  certainly  predestinated  to  life,  they 
are  as  certainly  predestinated  to  that  character  and 
state,  to  which  life  is  promised.  They  cannot  be 
exhorted  to  be  renewed  and  to  put  on  the  new 
man  ; — for  by  the  supposition  against  which  I  am 
contending,  their  renewal  is  already  certain.  It  is 
what  they  have  no  power,  either  to  prevent,  or  to 
bring  about,  or  even  to  accelerate.  Their  renewal 
has  indeed  already  taken  place  ;  for  they  are  ad- 


74 

dressed,  not  only  as  chosen  and  predestinated,  but 
as  saints  and  Christians,  which,  according  to  the 
scheme  under  consideration,  they  were  not,  till  they 
were  renewed.  And  with  what  propriety  can  such 
be  exhorted  a  not  to  grieve  the  holy  spirit  of 
God?" 

The  next,  and  only  other  passage,  to  which  Dr. 
Woods  has  referred  for  the  direct  proof  of  the  doc- 
trine of  sovereign  personal  election  to  eternal  life, 
is  that  contained  in  Romans  ix.  11 — 24.  A  similar 
method  of  investigation  to  that,  which  was  applied 
to  the  passage  in  Ephesians,  will  convince  you,  I 
think,  that  this  is  as  little  to  the  purpose  as  the  oth- 
er ;  and  that  it  has  no  relation  to  an  election  to 
eternal  life,  but  only  to  the  privileges  of  the  Gospel. 

This  will  appear  to  you  in  the  first  place  by  an 
attention  to  the  general  scope  and  design  of  the 
Epistle,  the  subject  of  which  was  suggested  by  the 
great  controversy  of  that  age,  respecting  the  exten- 
sion of  Christianity  to  the  Gentiles,  and  their  ad- 
mission to  its  privileges  and  hopes,  without  being 
subjected  to  the  observance  of  the  Mosaic  ritual. 
The  Apostle  combats  the  exclusive  spirit  of  his 
Jewish  brethren,  by  showing  them,  that  those  dis- 
tinctions, on  which  they  so  valued  themselves,  as 
the  chosen  people  of  God,  were  done  away  ;  that 
Gentiles  were  admitted  to  the  same  rights,  and  to 
the  opportunity  of  securing  the  final  favour  of 
Heaven  on  the  same  terms  with  them. 

The  Jews,  as  descendants  of  Abraham,  disciples 
of  Moses,  children  of  the  covenant  and  of  the  prom- 
ises, enjoyed  a  high  distinction  and  valuable  privi- 


75 

leges.  But  these  privileges  were  no  security  oi 
their  final  acceptance  with  God.  They  were  disci- 
plinary and  conditional.  The  knowledge  of  the 
law  would  be  of  no  avail  to  those,  who  did  not 
faithfully  observe  it.  The  sign  of  the  covenant 
would  not  save  those,  who  should  violate  it.  The 
oracles  of  God,  which  were  committed  to  them, 
would  but  enhance  the  guilt  and  the  condemnation 
of  those,  who,  with  all  their  superior  light  and  mo- 
tives, lived  no  better  than  ignorant  heathen. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Gentiles,  without  the 
light  of  the  written  law,  and  without  the  sign  of  the 
covenant,  the  external  mark  of  being  the  people  of 
God  ;  if,  guided  by  the  light  they  had,  (Rom.  ii. 
26,  27,  29)  they  fulfilled  the  law  by  a  virtuous  life,, 
thus  showing  practically  "  the  work  of  the  law 
written  in  the  heart,"  (ver.  15)  would  secure  that 
acceptance  of  God,  of  Him,  "  with  whom  is  no 
respect  of  persons,"  (ver.  11)  and  "who  will 
render  to  every  man  according  to  his  deeds,"  (ver. 
6)  which  the  Jew  must  lose,  who  being  "  a  Jew  out- 
wardly" only,  (ver.  28)  and  relying  on  the  letter  and 
circumcision,  was  emboldened  to  neglect  its  moral 
design,  and  to  live  as  a  heathen.  The  final  condi- 
tion of  every  individual,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile, 
was  to  depend  on  individual  personal  character, 
(ver.  5 — 10)  "  Indignation  and  wrath  to  every  soul 
of  man  that  doth  evil  :  glory,  honour,  and  peace  to 
every  man  that  worketh  good,  to  the  Jew,  and  also 
to  the  Gentile." 

Now  with  this  general   scope   and  design  of  the 
first  part  of  the  Epistle,  that  interpretation  of  the 


76 

ix.  ch.  which  refers  "  the  purpose  of  God,  according 
to  election/'  (ver.  11  et  seq.)  to  an  unconditional 
election  of  individuals  to  eternal  life,  seems  to  be 
wholly  irreconcileable  :  whereas,  that,  which  refers 
it  to  an  appointment,  free  and  unconditional,  to  the 
participation  of  privileges,  not  only  comports  well 
with  the  general  design  of  the  Epistle,  but  makes 
the  latter  part  of  it  a  continuation  of  the  former, 
and  a  completion  of  the  design,  that  prevails  in  the 
whole  preceding  part. 

This  appears  again  not  less  clearly,  when  we 
come  to  a  separate  examination  of  the  passage  itself. 

The  first  instance  mentioned  of  the  accomplish- 
ment of  u  the  purpose  of  God  according  to  election," 
is  that  of  the  appointment  of  Isaac,  and  pretermis- 
sion of  Ishmael  and  the  other  children  of  Abraham. 
But  what  purpose  of  God  was  accomplished  by  this? 
Not  the  salvation  of  Isaac,  but  the  fulfilment  of  the 
promise  to  Abraham  in  the  whole  series  of  dispensa- 
tions for  promoting  the  knowledge  of  God  and  true 
religion  in  the  world  ;  and  especially  in  raising  up 
one  from  among  his  descendants,  in  whom  "  all  the 
families  of  the  earth  were  to  be  blessed." 

The  next  instance  is  the  choice  of  Jacob  in 
preference  to  Esau,  a  choice  which  preceded  their 
birth,  and  could  therefore  have  no  respect  to  their 
good  or  ill  desert.  And  this,  the  whole  reasoning 
of  the  Apostle  assures  us,  is  applied,  not  to  Jacob 
personally,  but  to  the  race  descending  from  him ; 
and  not  to  them  in  their  personal  character,  but 
solely  to  their  designation,  as  a  people,  to  a  certain 
part  in  accomplishing  the  great  purposes  of  heaven. 


/  / 


In  this  appointment,  the  same  free,  sovereign,  un- 
controlled  will  was  exercised,  which  is  seen  in  the 
appointment  of  all  the  other  circumstances,  which 
make  up  the  state  of  trial  of  every  human  being. 
It  is  "  the  power  of  the  potter  over  the  clay,  of  the 
same  lump  to  make  one  vessel  to  honour,  and 
another  to  dishonour."  Upon  this  interpretation 
there  is  room  for  the  appeal,  (ver.  20)  "  shall  the 
thing  formed  say  to  him  that  formed  it,  why  hast 
thou  made  me  thus  ?"  Upon  that  interpretation, 
which  supposes  a  reference  to  the  final  lot  of  indi- 
viduals as  determined  by  a  decree  that  has  no  respect 
to  different  desert,  the  appeal  could  not  be  sustained. 

In  each  of  these  cases  we  perceive  a  peculiar 
propriety  in  the  expressions,  which  the  Apostle 
applies  by  way  of  reflection,  (ver.  16)  "  So  then  it 
is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor  of  him  that  runneth, 
but  of  God  that  sheweth  mercy."  It  was  the  wish 
of  Abraham,  that  the  blessing  might  be  given  to  his 
eldest  son  Ishmael.  It  was  the  desire  of  Isaac,  that 
it  should  descend  with  his  eldest  son  Esau.  But 
the  will  of  neither  of  them  was  permitted  to  prevail ; 
nor  yet  the  prompt  obedience  of  Esau,  by  which  he 
hoped  to  secure  it  to  himself. 

I  am  ready  to  admit,  with  Dr.  Woods,  that  this 
reflection  of  the  Apostle  implies  a  general  principle ; 
but  it  is  a  principle  to  be  applied  to  similar  cases 
only,  not  those  that  are  dissimilar.  Now  similar 
cases  are  those,  and  those  only,  which  relate  to 
privileges,  opportunities,  blessings,  which  are  dis- 
ciplinary in  their  design,  temporal  in  their  duration, 

and  make  a  part  of  human  probation.     That  which 
10 


78 

relates  directly  to  final  salvation   is  dissimilar,  and 
the  same  principle  is  not  to  be  applied. 

The  case  of  Pharaoh  is  as  little  to  the  purpose 
as  either  of  the  others.  For  when  it  is  said,  (ver* 
17)  "  For  this  same  purpose  I  have  raised  thee  up, 
that  I  might  shew  my  power  in  thee,  and  that  my 
name  might  be  declared  throughout  all  the  earth  ;" 
whether  by  the  phrase,  raised  thee  ap,  be  meant,  as 
some  suppose,  his  recovery  from  the  effects  of  the 
preceding  plague,  which  had  been  inflicted  on  his 
person  and  his  people  ;  or  as  others  understand  it, 
his  being  exalted  to  high  power,  and  placed  in  a 
situation  to  act  so  important  a  part ;  in  either  case, 
there  will  be  no  reference  to  his  final  personal  desti- 
ny. For  how  did  God  actually  show  his  power  in 
him,  and  make  him  the  instrument  of  his  glory  ?  It 
was  by  giving  him  the  opportunity  to  act  out  his 
character,  by  allowing  full  scope  for  displaying  the 
incorrigible  obstinacy  of  his  disposition,  and  by  then 
inflicting  upon  him  exemplary  punishment,  for  the 
instruction  and  warning  of  mankind  ;  thus  making 
him  the  instrument  of  promoting  some  of  the  best 
purposes  of  heaven,  in  the  free  and  voluntary 
exercise  of  his  power. 

I  should  have  passed  by  what  is  said  (p.  72)  on 
the  doctrine  of  Reprobation,  as  expressing  no  other 
sentiment  than  what  all  Unitarians,  as  I  believe,  hold 
on  the  subject,  but  that  I  think  it  calculated  (unin- 
tentionally I  am  persuaded,  as  respects  the  writer) 
to  mislead  the  reader,  as  to  the  opinions  of  the 
Orthodox  on  that  point.  Dr.  Woods  has  in  fact 
given  us,  not  as  he  professes  to  do,  the  doctrine  of 


79 

the  Orthodox,  as  to  the  decree  of  Reprobation  ;  but 
only  his  opinion  of  the  character  of  the  doctrine.  He 
says,  "  it  is  the  determination  of  God  to  punish 
disobedient  subjects  for  their  sins,  and  according  to 
their  deserts."  Now  this,  I  observe,  is  not  a  state- 
ment of  the  orthodox  doctrine,  but  his  opinion  of 
the  character  of  that  doctrine.  What  it  belongs  to 
him  to  state  and  defend  is,  not  an  opinion  upon  the 
subject,  which  he  holds  in  common  with  all  Chris- 
tians, but  that,  by  which  the  system  he  defends  is 
distinguished  from  others.  That  opinion  I  will  now 
state  in  the  language  of  one  of  the  most  approved 
symbols  of  Calvinistic  faith ;  and  it  is  such  as  fol- 
lows very  clearly  from  his  own  statement  of  the 
counterpart  of  the  doctrine.  u  The  rest  of  man- 
kind," i.  e.  all  but  the  elect,  "  God  was  pleased, 
according  to  the  unsearchable  counsel  of  his  own 
will,  whereby  he  extendeth  or  withholdeth  mercy 
as  he  pleaseth,  for  the  glory  of  his  sovereign  power 
over  his  creatures,  to  pass  by,  and  to  ordain  them 
to  dishonour  and  wrath  for  their  sin,  to  the  praise 
of  his  glorious  justice."  Again,  "  Others,  not 
elected,  though  they  may  be  called  by  the  ministers 
of  the  word,  and  may  have  some  common  operations 
of  the  spirit,  yet  they  never  truly  come  to  Christ, 
and  therefore  cannot  be  saved  ;  much  less  can  men, 
not  professing  the  christian  religion,  be  saved  in 
any  other  way  whatsoever,  be  they  never  so  diligent 
to  frame  their  lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature, 
and  the  law  of  that  religion,  which  they  do  profess : 
and  to  assert  and  maintain  that  they  may,  is  very 


80 

pernicious,    and    to    be   detested.''    (Westminster 
Confession. ) 

I  am  very  willing  to  believe  that  the  doctrine,  as 
thus  stated  in  the  orthodox  confessions,  does  not 
make  a  part  of  Dr.  Woods'  faith ;  though  I  am 
unable  to  perceive  with  what  consistency  he  can 
reject  it,  while  he  retains  the  other  parts  of  the 
system  that  are  connected  with  it. 

If  the  doctrines  of  original  hereditary  depravity, 
absolute  personal  election,  effectual  calling,  and 
special  irresistible  grace  be  true,  that  of  reprobation, 
as  stated  above,  follows  of  course,  and  must  be  true 
also.  Whether  it  be  that  Dr.  Woods,  with  a  fair 
and  inquiring  mind,  actually  shrinks  from  this 
doctrine,  because  he  finds  it  cannot  be  defended 
consistently  with  the  moral  character  of  God  :  or 
only  thinks  it  desirable  to  keep  out  of  view  a  fea- 
ture of  Calvinism,  which  shocks  our  moral  feelings 
more  than  any  other ;  in  either  case,  I  deem  it  an 
auspicious  circumstance,  a  favourable  omen.  Men 
will  not  long  continue  to  hold  an  opinion,  after  it 
has  got  to  cause  a  painful  struggle  with  their  moral 
feelings,  such  as  to  dispose  them  to  endeavour  to 
keep  it  out  of  sight.  They  will  not  suffer  themselves 
to  be  long  encumbered  with  that,  which  they  are 
unable  to  defend  or  unwilling  to  avow.  Besides 
this,  it  cannot  fail  to  open  the  eyes  of  men  to  the 
difficulties  of  the  other  parts  of  the  system,  which 
are  intimately  connected  with  this,  which  necessarily 
flow  from  it,  and  are  in  fact  no  better  supported  by 
scripture  nor  by  reason  than  this* 


81 

LETTER  V. 

Following  the  arrangement  adopted  by  Dr. 
Woods,  the  next  subject  to  which  I  am  to  call  your 
attention  is  that  oi*  the  Atonement.  It  is  a  doctrine 
on  which  great  stress  is  laid  by  orthodox  writers 
generally.  The  author  of  the  Letters  addressed  to 
Unitarians  says,  "  If  there  is  any  one  doctrine  of 
Revelation  which  the  Orthodox  distinguish  in  point 
of  importance  from  all  others,  it  is  the  doctrine  of 
Atonement."  It  must  accordingly  be  thought,  that 
the  importance  of  having  clear  conceptions  and  just 
views  on  the  subject  will  bear  some  proportion  to 
the  importance  of  the  subject  itself.  After  such  an 
introduction,  therefore,  to  a  letter  devoted  expressly 
to  the  discussion  of  that  subject,  it  was  certainly 
reasonable  to  expect  a  distinct  statement  of  the 
orthodox  explanation  of  the  texts  of  scripture,  in 
which  it  is  supposed  to  be  taught,  and  a  defence  of 
the  interpretation  by  which  those  texts  are  under- 
stood to  express  the  meaning  that  is  assigned  to 
them.  More  especially  was  this  to  be  expected  of 
one,  who  complains  that  the  opinions  of  the  Ortho- 
dox are  misrepresented,  and  who,  in  their  name, 
disclaims  the  opinions,  which  are  attributed  to  them. 
But  in  this  expectation  I  am  disappointed.  There 
is  much  complaint  of  misrepresentation,  but  I  find 
no  distinct  statement  in  what  the  alleged  misrepre- 
sentation consists,  nor  what  are  the  precise  opinions 
maintained  by  the  Orthodox  on  this  subject.  I  am 
able  to  collect  but   a  very  imperfect  and  indistinct 


82 

idea,  what  the  scheme,  which  claims  to  be  Orthodox 
on  this  subject,  is.  It  is  asserted,  that  the  language 
used  by  orthodox  writers  on  this  subject,  like  that 
used  by  the  sacred  writers,  is  highly  figurative, 
(p.  86,  &e.)  that  it  is  not  to  be  understood  literally, 
that  it  does  not  mean,  what  it  seems  to  express.  It 
would  have  greatly  assisted  us,  and  possibly  put  a 
period  to  all  controversy  on  the  subject,  had  the 
writer  seen  fit  to  explain  the  figures,  and  give  the 
true  interpretation  of  the  metaphors,  which  it  is 
complained  have  been  so  misunderstood,  and  have 
thus  laid  the  foundation  for  misrepresentation. 

The  first  charge  of  misrepresentation  is,  that 
the  author  of  the  Sermon  makes  it  a  part  of  the 
orthodox  system,  "  that  God  took  upon  him  human 
nature,  that  he  might  pay  to  his  own  justice  the 
debt  of  punishment  incurred  by  men,  and  might 
enable  himself  to  exercise  mercy" — "  that  he  might 
appease  his  own  anger  toward  men,  or  make  an 
infinite  satisfaction  to  his  own  justice."  The  un- 
fairness alleged  in  this  representation  is,  that  it  does 
not  recognize  the  distinction  of  persons  in  the  Deity, 
which  is  maintained  by  the  Orthodox,  and  it  is 
implied,  that  if  no  such  distinction  do  exist,  the 
representation  would  not  be  liable  to  objection,  for 
no  objection  is  made  to  it  it  on  any  other  ground. 
It  was  incumbent  then  on  Dr.  Woods,  not  merely  to 
assert  this  distinction  as  an  article  of  the  orthodox 
faith,  but  to  explain  what  it  is,  and  to  show  its 
foundation  in  the  language  of  scripture.  The  former 
he  has   declined,    as   not  being  within  the  scope  of 


83 

our  limited  minds  (p.  84),  the  latter,  as  not  falling 
within  his  purpose  (p.  85),  in  the  discussion  of  the 
subject.     But  until  both  are  done,   I    can  see  no 
ground  for   complaining  of  the   absurdity  charged 
upon  the  doctrine.     It  is  a  legitimate  and  necessary 
consequence  of  the  orthodox  faith,  that  Jesus  Christ, 
whom  the  Father  sent  into  the  world,   is    the   same 
being  with  the  Father  who  sent  him  ;  that  Christ, 
who  interposed  and  made  an  atonement  for  sinners, 
is  the  same  being  with  that  God,  who,  it  is  alleged, 
(p.  65)  "would  never  have  saved  them  without  such 
an  interposition."     It  was  the  same  God,  the  same 
being,  who  sent,  and  was  sent,  who  made  the  atone- 
ment, and  whose  anger  was  appeased  by  the  atone- 
ment, who  made  satisfaction  to  offended  justice,  and 
whose  justice  was  satisfied.  It  is  not  enough  to  assert, 
(p.  64)  that  u  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  two  as 
really  as  Moses  and  Aaron,   though  not  in  the  same 
sense,  nor  in  any  sense  inconsistent  with  their  being 
one."     It  belongs  to  him,  who  asserts  this,  to  state 
intelligibly,  what  is  the  nature   and  import  of  the 
distinction  here  intended ;  to  explain  in  what  sense 
two,  and  in  what  sense  one.     No  man  knows  better 
than  Dr.  Woods,  that  until  he  has  done  this,  he  has 
done  nothing  to  the  purpose.     He  uses  words  with- 
out meaning,  and  merely  casts  a  mist,  where    he  is 
bound  to  shed  light. 

The  next  imputation  on  the  orthodox  faith, 
which  Dr.  Woods  endeavours  to  remove  is,  that  il 
conveys  to  common  minds  the  idea,  that  "  Christ's 
death   has  an  influence  in  making  God  placable,  or 


84 

merciful,  in  quenching  his  wrath,  and  awakening 
his  kindness  towards  men."  Now  to  vindicate  the 
system,  and  those  who  support  it,  from  this  charge, 
it  was  necessary  to  show,  that  the  language,  in 
which  the  doctrine  is  expressed  and  enforced  by 
the  Orthodox,  is  not  calculated  to  produce  this 
impression.  But  has  this  been  done  ?  By  no  means. 
The  contrary  is  frankly  admitted.  It  is  conceded 
that  the  literal  sense  of  the  orthodox  writings 
amounts  to  this.  It  is  asserted,  indeed,  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  Orthodox  is  the  very  reverse  of  this, 
"  that  the  mercy  of  God,  not  the  interposition  of 
Christ,  was  the  origin  and  moving  cause  of  the  work 
of  redemption  ;"  (p.  68)  u  that  the  mercy  or  placa- 
bility of  God  could  neither  be  produced  nor  increas- 
ed by  the  atonement  of  Christ.7'  These  are  noble, 
correct,  scriptural  views.  We  are  delighted  to  find 
on  this  point  an  opinion  so  highly  important,  in 
exact  coincidence  with  that  of  Unitarians,  and  one 
to  which  they  attach  a  very  high  degree  of  impor- 
tance. We  are  glad  too  to  find  a  strong  sensibility 
expressed  to  the  honour  of  the  divine  character, 
and  horror  at  the  thought  of  an  opinion,  so  deroga- 
tory to  it,  as  that  which  is  attributed  to  the  influ- 
ence of  the  language  they  use  on  the  subject.  But 
why  then  does  he  go  on  to  defend  the  use  of  that 
language,  instead  of  correcting  it  ?  Since  it  is 
admitted  not  to  be  the  language  of  scripture,  and 
that  understood  literally  it  does  convey  the  ideas 
objected  to ;  that  it  does  make  the  impression  at 
which  so  much  horror  is  expressed,  does  express  a 


85 

doctrine  acknowledged  to  be  false  and  unfounded  ; 
why  is  it  not  given  up  ?  Especially  as  it  would,  on 
this  point,  put  an  end  to  all  controversy.  And  why 
complain  that  the  opinions  of  the  Orthodox  are 
misrepresented,  when  it  is  acknowledged  that  the 
opinions  attributed  to  them  are  the  literal  and 
obvious  meaning  of  the  language  they  employ  ? 

It  is  to  little  purpose  to  say,  that  the  figurative 
language  used  on  this  subject,  though  not  the  same, 
resembles  that  employed  by  the  sacred  writers  in 
reference  to  the  same  subject.  Dr.  Woods  admits 
that  the  language  of  the  sacred  writers  is  highly  fig- 
urative. He  admits  too  that  such  boldness  of  meta- 
phor is  peculiar  to  the  Eastern,  and  particularly  to 
the  Hebrew  idiom  ;  (p.  88)  and  that  it  is  not  so  con- 
sentaneous to  our  language,  (p.  99)  Why,  then, 
will  orthodox  writers  use  it  without  explanation, 
when  it  serves  to  mislead  readers  and  hearers  who 
are  not  aware  of  this  character  of  the  Eastern 
languages  ;  and  lead  them  into  so  great  an  error  ? 
And  if  orthodox  writers,  instead  of  explaining  the 
metaphors,  so  that  their  true  meaning  may  be  un- 
derstood, "for  the  purpose  of  strong  impression," 
use  them  as  if  they  were  to  be  understood  literally : 
and  not  only  so,  but  further  sanction  that  interpre- 
tation by  the  use  of  other  similar  language  of  the 
same  literal  import ;  especially  if  they  charge  Uni- 
tarians with  denying  or  explaining  away  the  doc- 
trine for  the  very  reason,  that  they  explain  the  lan- 
guage in  question  as  figurative  ;  can  he  be  surprized 
that  the  Orthodox  should  be  supposed  to  hold  the 
11 


86 

opinions,  which  the  language  literally  expresses  ? 
Could  it  be  imagined  by  a  plain,  honest  man,  un- 
der these  circumstances,  that  while  this  strong  im- 
pressive language  is  constantly  used  and  insisted  on, 
something  very  different  is  all  the  time  meant  from 
that  which  strikes  the  ear  ?  And,  let  me  ask,  does 
it  enter  into  the  minds  of  common  hearers  of  such 
language,  that,  correctly  interpreted,  it  expresses 
no  ideas,  which  would  be  "  objected  to  by  Unitari 
ans  ?"  (p.  92)  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  in  future  the 
opinions  of  Unitarians  on  this  part  of  the  subject 
will  be  viewed  with  less  aversion,  when  we  are  told 
from  so  high  authority,  that  "  the  language  used  by 
orthodox  writers  is  to  be  understood  as  highly  fig- 
urative ;  that,  taken  literally,  it  would  impute  a 
character  to  God,  which  would  excite  universal  hor- 
ror ;  but  understood  according  to  the  legitimate 
principles  of  interpreting  metaphors,  it  teaches  the 
simple  truth,  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  the 
means  of  procuring  pardon,  or  the  medium,  through 
which  salvation  is  granted."  (p.  93)  Dr.  Woods  is 
right  in  supposing,  "  that  no  objection  will  lie  in 
the  minds  of  Unitarians,"  against  the  doctrine 
thus  expressed.  It  is  the  very  manner  of  expressing 
the  influence  of  the  Atonement ;  which  has  been 
adopted  by  unitarian  writers. 

Dr.  Woods  proceeds  to  the  notice  of  several 
other  modes  of  expression,  the  use  of  which  by  the 
Orthodox  he  supposes  to  have  been  misunderstood, 
in  a  similar  manner,  and  from  the  same  cause,  the 
misinterpretation  of  figurative   language.      When 


87 

it  is  said  that  Christ  bought  us,  redeemed  us  by  his 
blood  ;  when  he  is  said  to  have  paid  our  debt,  to 
have  satisfied  divine  justice,  to  have  redeemed  us 
from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for 
us,  and  that   our  sin  was  imputed  to   him ;  when 
these  and  other  figurative  forms  of  expression  are 
employed  to   set  forth  the  design  and  influence  of 
Christ's  death,  we  are  told  "  they  are  to  be  in- 
terpreted as    metaphorical  language,   according  to 
the  nature  of  the  metaphors  used,  and  that  against 
the   literal    sense,    there    are    many    objections, 
(p.  95)     So  far  there  will  be  no  controversy  on  the 
part  of  Unitarians,  and  it  gives  us  no  small  satis- 
faction, that  we  have  here  a  ground  upon  which  we 
can  stand  together.     And  we  are  not  without  hope, 
that  agreeing  in  this  principle  on  which  to  proceed, 
we  shall  gradually  approach  nearer  together  in  the 
result,  till   there  shall   no   difference  remain  worth 
contending  about. 

But  when  Dr.  Woods  proceeds  to  explain  the 
figures,  he  seems  to  have  fallen  into  the  same 
error  u  of  mixing  a  degree  of  the  literal  sense  with 
the  metaphorical,"  which  he  afterwards  mentions, 
and  to  which  he  traces  some  important  mistakes, 
into  which  other  writers  have  been  led.  To  per- 
ceive this,  you  have  only  to  compare  together  the 
passage  (p.  94),  in  which  he  professes  to  explain 
what  is  meant  by  our  being  bought,  redeemed, 
our  debt  paid,  and  divine  justice  satisfied  ;  with 
that  (p.  96),  in  which  "  the  notion,  that  if  Christ 
has  made  a  perfect  atonement  and  satisfied  divine 


88 

justice,  those  for  whom  he  has  done  this  are  no 
longer  under  the  same  obligations  to  obey  the  law, 
and  punishing  them  for  their  sins  would  no  longer 
be  just,  is  attributed  to  something  of  a  literal  sense 
being  applied  to  the  figurative  language  of  Scrip- 
ture and  of  orthodox  writers.  And  it  is  admitted, 
that  "  if  Christ  paid  our  debt,  or  the  price  of  our 
redemption  literally,  as  a  friend  discharges  an  insol- 
vent debtor,  or  purchases  the  freedom  of  a  slave 
by  the  payment  of  money  ;  it  would  certainly  be 
an  unrighteous  thing  for  us  to  be  held  to  pay  our 
own  debt,  or  to  suffer  the  evils  of  servitude."  For  in 
the  passage  referred  to,  this  is  the  very  represen- 
tation that  is  made.  u  As  the  debtor  is  freed  from 
imprisonment  by  the  friend  who  steps  forward 
and  pays  his  debt,  so  are  sinners  freed  from  pun- 
ishment by  the  Saviour  who  shed  his  blood  for 
them."  The  payment  is  as  literal  in  the  one 
case  as  in  the  other  ;  and  I  see  not  how  the  con- 
sequence, consistently  with  what  is  admitted  above, 
is  to  be  avoided.  The  same  may  be  said  with 
respect  to  the  other  terms.  The  consequence  is 
not  to  be  evaded,  if  our  redemption  by  Christ 
means,  as  is  there  stated,  "  his  delivering  us  from 
the  punishment  of  the  law  by  suffering  an  evil 
which,  so  far  as  the  ends  of  divine  government 
are  concerned,  was  equivalent  to  the  execution  of 
the  curse  of  the  law  upon  transgressors."  (p.  94) 
The  ends  of  the  divine  government  are  answered, 
the  demands  of  the  law  are  fulfilled.  It  has  no  far- 
ther demands.     When  Christ  has  done  and  suffered 


89 

that  which  answers  the  ends  of  justice  in  the  di- 
vine government,  the  necessity  of  punishment,  so 
far  as  those  ends  are  concerned,  is  superseded. 
The  sinner  then  is  free  ;  exempt  alike  from  obli- 
gation, and  from  danger  of  punishment.  The 
debt  is  paid;  justice  is  satisfied;  the  ends  of  gov- 
ernment are  answered  by  the  voluntary  substitute. 
These  consequences  certainly  follow  from  the 
manner  which  Dr.  Woods  has  adopted  of  ex- 
plaining the  figurative  language  of  the  sacred 
writers. 

But  the  language   in  question   certainly   does 
admit  of  a  fair  and  unstrained  interpretation,  which 
leads  to  no  such   consequences.     We  are  declared 
to  have   "  redemption,   the  forgiveness  of  sins,  by 
the  blood  of  Christ.7'     It  will  help  us   to  the  true 
interpretation  of  this  language    to   attend   to  the 
use  of  the  word  redemption  by  the  sacred  writers 
in  other  analogous  cases.     Literally  to  redeem  is 
to  relieve  from  forfeiture,  or  captivity,  or  slavery, 
or  to  rescue  from  punishment  by  the   payment  of 
a  price,   and  the   price   thus  paid  is   the  ransom. 
When,  by  a  price  paid  by  some  friend,  a  captive 
is  restored  to  liberty,  or  the  punishment  of  a  crim- 
inal is  remitted,  whose  life  was  forfeited  to  the  law  ; 
in  each  of  these  cases  there  is  a  redemption  in  the 
original  meaning  and  literal  sense  of  the  word.     In 
the  same  manner  also,  if  "  Christ  delivers  us  from 
punishment   by  suffering  an  evil,  which  was  equiv- 
alent, so   far  as  the  ends  of  the  divine  government 
are   concerned,   to   the    execution  of  the  curse  of 


90 

the  law  upon  transgressors,"  (p.  94)  that  is  a  literal 
redemption,  and  that  and  the  other  correspondent 
terms,  such  as  bought  and  ransomed,  are  applied, 
and  are  to  be  understood,  not  in  a  metaphorical 
but  a  literal  sense.  And  here  I  cannot  but  observe, 
that  the  error  complained  of,  that  of  mixing  a 
literal  with  the  metaphorical  sense  of  such  phrases, 
consists,  not  as  intimated,  (p.  95)  "  in  the  manner 
of  reasoning  upon  them,"  but  in  the  interpretation 
of  the  language  itself. 

Now  it  is  not  difficult  in  this  case  to  trace  the 
passage  of  the  term  in  question  from  its  original 
literal  meaning  to  its  metaphorical  use.  For  as  the 
deliverance  from  captivity  or  punishment  was  the 
principal  thing,  and  the  price  paid  as  a  ransom  only 
a  secondary  consideration  in  making  up  the  complex 
idea  of  redemption,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  the  term 
came  to  be  used  to  denote  the  principal  thing  alone, 
where  this  accessory  circumstance  was  wanting ; 
and  thus  any  kind  of  deliverance,  by  a  very  common 
change  in  the  use  of  language,  was  called  a  re- 
demption. Examples  occur  in  the  sacred  writings 
as  well  as  in  our  constant  use.  The  deliverance  of 
the  Israelites  from  Egyptian  bondage  is  called  a 
redemption,  and  God  is  said  on  this  account  to 
be  their  redeemer,  to  have  redeemed  them  from  the 
house  of  bondage,  and  out  of  the  hand  of  Pharaoh 
the  king  of  Egypt. 

But  how  was  this  redemption  effected  ?  Was 
a  ransom  paid  as  the  price  of  their  deliverance,  as 
an  equivalent  for  their  services,  as  a  consideration, 


91 

for  which  their  oppressors  were  to  let  them  go  r 
Let  the  sacred  historians  and  prophets  answer  this 
question.  (Exod.  vi.  6)  "  I  will  redeem  you  with  a 
stretched  out  arm,  and  with  great  judgments. " 
(Deut.  ix.  26)  "  Destroy  not  thy  people,  which 
thou  hast  redeemed  through  thy  greatness,  which 
thou  hast  brought  forth  out  of  Egypt  with  a  mighty 
hand."  (Neh.  i.  10)  "Now  these  are  thy  servants 
and  thy  people,  whom  thou  hast  redeemed  by  thy 
great  power  and  thy  strong  hand."  The  nation  of 
Israel  then  was  redeemed,  not  by  a  ransom  paid  to 
their  former  oppressors,  as  the  price  of  their  eman- 
cipation, but  by  the  mighty  power  and  strong  hand 
of  Jehovah,  stretched  forth  in  those  signs  and  won- 
ders in  Egypt,  in  the  Red  Sea,  and  in  the  wilderness, 
by  which  the  Egyptian  monarch  was  compelled  to 
suffer  their  departure,  by  which  they  were  protect 
ed  and  avenged,  when  pursued  by  their  oppressors, 
and  were  conducted  in  safety  to  the  promised  land. 

The  term  is  applied  also  in  a  similar  manner  to 
the  deliverance  of  that  nation  from  the  Babylonian 
captivity.  (Micah  iv.  10)  "Thou  shalt  go  even  to 
Babylon  ;  there  shalt  thou  be  delivered ;  there  the 
Lord  shall  redeem  thee  from  the  hand  of  thine 
enemies."  It  is  applied  in  many  instances  also  to 
the  deliverance  of  individuals  from  danger,  captiv- 
ity, slavery,  or  any  great  calamity  ;  and  the  pro- 
priety of  the  term  is  sufficiently  maintained,  where 
something  important  is  done,  though  nothing  is 
literally  paid,  to  procure  the  deliverance. 

These  examples  of  the  use  of  this  term  may  lead 
us  to  some  just  notions  of  its  meaning,  as  applied  to 


92 

express  the  benefit  we  receive,  when  it  is  said  we 
have  redemption  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  It  is  not, 
that  his  death  was  a  price  literally  paid,  either  to 
God,  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  vindictive  justice,  or 
to  the  enemy  of  God  and  man,  as  the  purchase  of 
our  release  from  his  power.  He  was  our  redeemer 
in  the  same  sense,  in  which  God  was  the  redeemer 
of  the  children  of  Israel ;  and  he  redeemed  us  by 
his  blood,  as  they  were  redeemed  by  the  mighty 
power,  and  the  strong  arm  of  the  God  of  Israel. 
As  God  was  the  redeemer  of  Israel  by  the  miracles 
of  Egypt,  so  Christ  was  our  redeemer  by  those 
miracles  which  proved  him  to  be  a  messenger  and 
teacher  from  God ;  by  those  instructions  and  that 
example,  which  were  to  remove  our  ignorance,  and 
deliver  us  from  the  slavery  of  sin,  and  bondage  of 
corruption ;  by  those  high  motives  to  repentance 
and  holiness,  which  are  found  in  the  revelation  of  a 
future  life  and  righteous  retribution  ;  and  especially 
by  the  confirmation  his  doctrine  and  promises 
received,  and  the  persuasive  efficacy  given  to  his 
example,  by  his  sufferings,  his  voluntary  death, 
and  his  resurrection.  He  was  our  redeemer  by 
doing  and  suffering  all,  that  was  necessary  to  effect 
our  deliverance  from  the  power  of  sin,  to  bring  us 
to  repentance  and  holiness,  and  thus  make  us  the 
fit  objects  of  forgiveness  and  the  favour  of  heaven. 
This  view  of  the  subject  will  enable  us  to  correct 
an  error,  into  which  we  are  liable  to  be  led  by  lan- 
guage, which  we  frequently  meet  with  ;  as  when  it  is 
said  in  the  Letters  to  Unitarians,  that  "when  Christ 
is  said  to  pay  our  debt,  it  is  simply  signified,  that 


J*-*. 


*> 


93 

by  means  of  his  sufferings,  he  delivers  us  from 
punishment."  (p.  94)  Christ  delivers  us  from  pun- 
ishment not  direct///  hy  his  sufferings.  It  is  not 
that  his  sufferings  are  in  any  sense  a  substitute  for 
ours.  It  is  not  that  satisfaction  is  made  by  his 
sufferings  to  divine  justice,  so  that  the  sinner  es- 
capes, because  "there  is  no  further  need  of  punish- 
ment." It  is  not  that  our  sin  was  so  imputed  to 
Christ,  that  he  u  suffered,  in  some  sense,  as  he 
would  have  suffered  if  our  sin  had  been  really 
imputed  to  him,"  and  that  we  are  directly  in  con- 
sequence of  this  vicarious  suffering  exempted  from 
the  punishment.  But  his  sufferings  are  the  means 
of  delivering  us  from  punishment,  only  as  they  are 
instrumental  in  delivering  us  from  the  dominion  of 
sin.  They  are  the  grounds  of  our  forgiveness,  only 
as  they  are  the  means  of  bringing  us  to  repentance, 
only  as  they  operate  to  bring  us  to  that  state  of 
holiness,  and  conformity  to  the  will  of  God,  which 
has  the  promise  of  forgiveness,  and  qualifies  us 
for  it. 

There  is  another  term  also  used  by  the  sacred 
writers  to  express  the  efficacy  of  Christ's  death, 
which  admits  of  a  satisfactory  explanation  somewhat 
similar  to  that  which  has  been  given  of  redemption* 
and  is  to  be  understood  as  having  passed  to  a 
similar  metaphorical  sense.  The  whole  of  that,  by 
which  the  benefits  of  redemption  are  procured  for 
us,  whether  it  be  the  active  obedience,  or  the  suf- 
ferings and  death  of  Christ,  or  both  together,  is 
spoken  of  as  a  sacrifice.  (Heb.  ix.  26)  "He  ap- 
peared to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself.'* 


94 

The  meaning  of  this  is  rendered  perfectly  intelli- 
gible, and  is  freed  from  the  insuperable  difficulties 
that  attend  any  explanation,  in  which  is  contained 
"a  mixture  of  the  literal  with  the  metaphorical 
sense,"  by  attending  to  a  change  from  a  literal  to 
a  metaphorical  sense  of  the  term  sacrifice,  similar 
to  that,  which  has  been  noticed  in  the  terms  redeem 
and  redemption. 

A  sacrifice,  in  its  primitive  meaning,  is  an  of- 
fering made  to  God,  as  an  acknowledgment  of 
dependence,  as  an  expression  of  gratitude,  or  for 
the  expiation  of  sin.  It  is  thus  applied  to  the 
various  offerings  appointed  in  the  Jewish  ritual. 
But  as  the  effect  to  be  produced  is  the  principal 
thing,  and  it  is  of  little  comparative  importance 
in  what  manner  it  is  produced,  and  by  what  cir- 
cumstance or  act  it  is  brought  about ;  any  other 
act,  by  which  a  similar  effect  is  produced,  though 
no  proper  sacrifice  be  offered,  is  familiarly  called 
by  the  sacred  writers  a  sacrifice.  We  find  the 
term  thus  applied  to  prayer  and  thanksgiving. 
(Psalm  cxli.  2)  "  Let  my  prayer  be  set  before 
thee  as  incense,  and  the  lifting  up  of  my  hands  as 
the  evening  sacrifice.*'  (Psalm  cxvi.  17)  i(  I  will 
offer  to  thee  the  sacrifice  of  thanksgiving.*'  (Heb. 
xiii.  15)  "  By  him  let  us  offer  the  sacrifice  of  praise, 
that  is,  the  fruit  of  our  lips."  It  is  applied  to  a 
holy  life.  (Rom.  xii.  1)  "  That  ye  present  your 
bodies  a  living  sacrifice,  holy,  acceptable  to  God.** 
It  is  finally  applied  to  an  act  of  kindness  and 
relief.  (Phil.  iv.  18)  "  I  have  received  the  things 
which  ye  sent,  a  sacrifice  acceptable,  well  pleasing 


95 

to  God."  It  is  by  a  use  of  the  term  similar  to 
what  we  find  in  these  examples,  that  sacrifice  is 
applied  to  whatever  was  done  by  Jesus  Christ  for 
our  benefit,  especially  to  the  labours  and  mortifica- 
tions of  his  life,  and  the  sufferings  that  attended  his 
death  ;  and  that  he  is  said  to  have  "  put  away  sin 
by  the  sacrifice  of  himself." 

It  may  further  help  us  to  correct  notions  on 
this  subject,  to  be  reminded  of  what  a  change  the 
word  Atonement  itself  has  undergone.  This  term 
is  now  more  used  than  any  other  to  express  the 
popular  doctrine  of  an  expiation  for  sin  procured 
by  the  death  of  Christ,  a  satisfaction  made  to 
divine  justice,  the  Deity  thus  rendered  propitious, 
his  anger  appeased,  his  mercy  conciliated,  and 
forgiveness  obtained  for  those,  for  whom  this  atone- 
ment was  made. 

But  it  is  evident,  I  think,  that  this  was  not 
the  original  meaning  of  the  word.  It  occurs  but 
once  only  in  the  New  Testament,  (Rom.  v.  11) 
"  By  whom  we  have  now  received  the  atonement.7' 
And  in  that  case  it  is  translated  from  a  word, 
xuTuXXety/i,  which  in  every  other  instance  is  ren- 
dered reconciliation.  The  same  is  undoubtedly 
the  meaning  of  *he  word  also  in  this  place.  And 
we  have  reason  to  think,  that  it  was  understood  to 
be  its  meaning  by  the  translators,  and  that  they 
meant  to  use  the  word  atonement  in  that  sense  only. 
This  is  rendered  probable  by  the  formation  of  the 
word  itself.  It  is  a  compound  word,  and  in  some 
early  English  writers  the  composition  of  the  word 
is  indicated,  and  thus  its  meaning  pointed  out  in 


74 

the  manner  of  writing  it,  at-one-ment,  at-one* 
Atonement  then  expressed  the  condition  of  being 
at  one,  in  a  state  of  agreement,  reconciliation ; 
and  to  atone  was  to  produce  reconciliation,  to 
bring  parties  to  agreement,  so  that  they  shall  be 
at-one. 

Dr.  Johnson  has  mentioned  two  instances  of 
this  use  of  the  word  in  a  writer  of  the  next  age 
preceding  that,  in  which  our  translation  of  the 
Bible  was  made. 

"  He  and  Aufidus  can  no  more  atone, 

Than  violentest  contrariety." — Shakspeare's  Coriolanus. 

That  is,  can  no  more  agree,  be  reconciled,  be  at 
one.     Again, 

"  He  seeks  to  make  atonement 

Between  the  Duke  of  Gloster  and  your  brothers." 

That  is,  to  produce  a  reconciliation  between  them, 
to  bring  them  to  agreement. 

Now,  when  we  thus  consider  the  change  of 
meaning,  which  this  word  has  undergone,  from 
expressing  simply  the  state  of  agreement,  the  fact 
of  a  reconciliation,  to  express  that,  by  which  the 
agreement  is  produced,  the  reconciliation  is  effect- 
ed ;  we  find  in  the  use  of  the  word -itself  no  support 
of  the  doctrine  it  is  usually  understood  to  express. 
The  term  has  evidently  a  different  meaning  as 
used  by  St.  Paul,  and  probably  as  understood  by 
his  translator,  from  what  it  has  in  modern  books  of 
controversial  theology. 

According  to  the  explanations  which  have  now 
been  given,  of  the  language  of  the  New  Testament 


97 

on  this  subject,  it  will  be  seen,  that  those  Unitarians 
who  reject  the  popular  doctrine  of  the  Atonement, 
yet  attribute  an  important  efficacy  to  the  sufferings 
and    death,   as  well  as  the  instructions  and  exam- 
ple of  Jesus  Christ,  in  procuring  pardon  and  sal- 
vation.     But  this   efficacy  consists,    not  in  their 
appeasing  the  anger  of  God,  and  disposing  him 
to    be  merciful,    but   in  their  moral  influence   on 
men,   in   bringing   them    to    repentance,    holiness, 
and   an  obedient   life,    and    thus    rendering  them 
fit  subjects  of  forgiveness  and   the  divine   favour. 
The  sufferings  and   death  of  Christ  are  thus  rep- 
resented  as  being  not  in   our  stead,   but  for  our 
benefit;  and  intended  to  render  the  forgiveness  of 
sin  consistent  with  ii  the  honours  of  the  divine  law, 
the  character  of  the  lawgiver,  and  the  interests  of 
his  moral  kingdom/'  (p.  102) — not  by  satisfying  jus- 
tice, but  by  subduing  the  spirit  of  rebellion,  restor- 
ing the  authority  and  power  of  the  law,  and  making 
men  obedient  subjects. 

And  these  explanations  meet  in  a  satisfactory 
manner  the  true  meaning  of  the  two  texts,  which 
Dr.  Woods  has  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  illus- 
trating (p.  101)  the  "bearing  which  the  death  of 
Christ  has  on  the  moral  government  of  God,  and 
how  it  secures  mercy  to  penitent  sinners.7'  Accord- 
ing to  this  view  of  the  subject,  "  Christ  was  made  a 
curse  for  us,"  not  in  our  stead  and  as  our  substitute, 
but  for  our  benefit.  And  his  being  made  a  curse 
for  us  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  from 
the  punishment  due  to  us  as  transgressors  of  the  law, 
by  its  influence  in  bringing  us  bark   to  repentance 


98 

and  subjection  to  the  law.  And  when  this  was  done, 
the  sinner  reconciled  to  God,  brought  to  repentance, 
subjection  to  the  law,  and  a  life  of  holiness,  the 
purposes  of  God's  moral  government  are  answered, 
its  authority  is  supported,  h^s  law  is  vindicated, 
"  God  is  justified,  is  seen  to  be  just,  is  perceived  to 
have  a  regard  to  justice,  in  justifying  him,  who 
believes  in  Jesus."  It  is  seen  that  in  extending 
pardon  to  the  penitent  believer,  he  has  not  yielded 
up  the  authority  of  his  law,  nor  subjected  his  gov- 
ernment to  contempt. 

The  question  which  Dr.  Woods  here  asks  him- 
self, (p.  102)  "  what  hindrance  there  is  in  the  way 
of  God's  showing  the  same  favour  to  transgressors 
as  to  the  obedient,"  is  incorrectly  stated,  so  as  to 
give  a  deceptive  view.  The  question  is  not,  whether 
God  can  consistently  with  his  character  of  moral 
governor,  and  the  honour  and  safety  of  his  govern- 
ment, show  favour  to  transgressors,  but  whether  he 
can  extend  forgiveness  to  the  penitent,  to  those  who 
have  ceased  to  be  transgressors,  and  have  returned 
to  their  allegiance.  The  answer  to  this  question 
would  be  very  different  from  what  the  other  re- 
quires. None  of  the  consequences,  which  it  is 
readily  admitted  must  follow  on  that  supposition, 
would  have  any  place  on  this.  God's  readiness  to 
show  favour  to  those  who  repent  and  return  to 
virtue,  does  not  show,  u  that  the  authority  of 
the  law  is  set  aside,  and  that  no  distinction  is 
made  between  virtue  and  vice."  Nothing  indeed 
can  show  in  a  stronger  light  than  this,  God's  love 
of  virtue,  and  desire  to  encourage  it  by  encouraging 


99 

the  first  return  to  it.  No  other  expedient,  whicli 
the  wisdom  of  God  could  devise,  certainly  not  that 
which  consists  in  an  atonement  by  the  substitution, 
either  literal  or  figurative,  of  the  sufferings  of  an 
innocent  person  in  the  place  of  the  guilty,  will  show 
better  than  the  necessity  of  repentance  and  holiness 
and  their  efficacy  in  order  to  forgiveness  and  the 
divine  favour,  "  that  God  does  and  for  ever  will 
make  a  distinction  between  holiness  and  sin." 

I  have  next  to  make  some  remarks  on  the  de- 
fence of  the  orthodox  faith  against  the  objection, 
that  it  "  lowers  the  value  of  Christ's  sacrifice,  and 
robs  his  death  of  interest  ;"  because  consisting, 
according  to  this  scheme,  of  a  divine  and  human 
nature  united  together,  the  human  nature  only 
could  suffer  and  die.  So  that,  instead  of  the  infinite 
atonement  made  by  the  sufferings  and  death  of  an 
infinite  being,  it  is  in  fact  only  the  sufferings  and 
death  of  a  man.  The  defence  is  made  on  the  common 
ground  of  the  "  human  and  divine  nature  in  Christ 
constituting  but  one  person,  so  that  all  his  actions 
and  sufferings  belong  to  him  as  one  person."  As 
this  is  the  only  defence  that  is,  and  the  only  one 
that  can  be,  set  up,  let  us  examine  a  little  its  value 
and  force.  It  is  admitted,  that  if  the  premises  are 
true,  the  conclusion  does  follow;  if  Jesus  Christ  is 
both  perfect  God  and  perfect  man  in  one  individual 
person,  the  defence  is  complete. 

But  in  the  first  place  I  remark,  that  the  possi- 
bility of  two  distinct  intelligent  natures  makirg  but 
one  person,  has  never  been  shown  to  the  smallest 
degree  of  satisfaction  ;  especially  of  two  natures  so 


100 

distinct  and  distant  as  the  divine  and  human,  a  finite 
and  an  infinite  mind.  No  Trinitarian  can  deny, 
that  in  Jesus  Christ  are  two  perfectly  distinct  minds, 
two  perfectly  distinct,  intelligent  natures,  as  distinct 
as  any  two  intelligent  beings  can  be.  But  two 
distinct  minds,  two  distinct  intelligent  beings,  with 
each  its  separate  consciousness,  knowledge,  capaci- 
ty, will,  and  action,  cannot  be  other  than  two  distinct 
persons.  But  all  these  the  trinitarian  doctrine 
attributes  to  Jesus  Christ.  Separate  consciousness, 
for  the  divine  nature  by  the  supposition  was  not 
conscious  of  any  of  that  suffering,  by  which  the 
atonement  was  made  ; — separate  knowledge,  for  it 
is  alleged,  that  the  divine  person  knew  that,  of 
which  the  human  person  was  ignorant ; — separate 
capacity,  for  the  human  nature  of  Christ  could  in- 
crease in  wisdom  and  knowledge,  while  the  divine 
nature,  being  omniscient,  was  incapable  of  increase  ; 
■ — separate  will,  for  the  human  person  most  earnestly 
prayed  for  that  to  take  place,  which  it  could  cer- 
tainly be  no  wish  of  the  omniscient  mind  should 
take  place  ;— separate  action,  for  while  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  was  limited  to  the  labours  only  of 
a  man,  and  confined  to  a  narrow  space,  the  divine 
nature  was  extending  its  influence  to  all  beings  and 
events,  and  producing  its  effects  over  worlds  and 
systems  throughout  the  universe.  It  is  impossible 
for  any  reasoning  to  show  more  clearly,  than  this 
simple  statement,  the  absolute  incredibility  of  this. 
But  this  is  not  all.  The  identity  of  person  is  not 
■only  shown  to  be  impossible,  upon  the  trinita- 
rian hypothesis.      The   only  ground   upon   which 


101 

some  of  the  strongest  objections  to  the  trinitarian 
doctrine,   that   part  of  it,   which    consists   in   the 
supreme    Deity   of  Jesus   Christ,   can   be   evaded 
is,    by   the  assumption   of  two  distinct  persons  in 
Jesus    Christ :   by  assuming  that     he    sp^ke,    and 
acted,    and    suffered,    and  was    spoken  of  in  two 
different   characters.       And    this    assumption    has 
been  made,    as  far  as  I   have   seen,    universally  by 
trinitarian    writers,    not  in   words   indeed,    but   in 
fact.  "Here,  it  is  asserted,  no  argument  lies  against 
his  divinity,  for  he  is  speaking  not  as  God,   but  aa 
man.     Of  this  indeed  he  was  ignorant  as  man,  but 
he  knew  it  as  God,  and  this  he  might  truly  say  he 
was  unable  to   do   as  man,  though  as  God  he   could 
do  all  things."     This,  I  observe,  is  the  answer  on 
which  Trinitarians  have  rested,  and  it  is   the  only 
one  they  have  offered  to  all  those  texts,  and  they  are 
very  numerous,  in  which  inferiority  to  the  Father, 
limited  knowledge,  and  limited  power  are  expressed 
or  implied.     And    this   goes  on  the   supposition  of 
two  distinct  persons,  and   is   utterly  absurd   on  any 
other  supposition.     It  is  indeed   a  palpable  contra- 
diction to  say,  that  the  same  person  knows  and  does 
not  know  the  same  thing  at  the  same  time  ;  can  do 
and  cannot  do   the   same  thing   at   the  same  time. 
And   this  contradiction,  and  worse   than  trilling,  is 
attributed  to  the  Saviour  in  some  of  his  most  solemn 
declarations,  by  the  supposition  in  question.     With 
these  brief  hints  I  am  willing  to  leave  the  reader  to 
make   up  his  judgment,  "how  far  the  views  of  the 
Orthodox  in  this  case  are  capable  of  being  defended 

in  a  satisfactory  manner." 
13 


102 

I  would  gladly  have  passed  unnoticed  what  I 
find  on  the  last  page  of  the  Letter  respecting  the 
Atonement,  as  it  is  unpleasant  to  be  obliged  to 
express  the  censure,  to  which  I  think  a  charge  of 
so  serious  a  kind,  as  is  there  brought  against  those, 
who  reject  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  is  entitled 
to.  This  subject,  it  seems,  is  one,  which  it  is  dan- 
gerous to  discuss,  and  on  which  it  is  not  safe  even 
to  inquire.  For  certainly,  if  the  rejection  of  the 
doctrine  is  in  itself  u  a  plain  indication  of  the  dis- 
position of  the  heart,  and  a  proof  of  a  temper  of 
mind,  which  is  in  total  contrariety  to  the  humble 
spirit  of  Christian  faith,"  it  is  not  a  subject  on 
which  it  is  safe  to  trust  ourselves  in  speculating. 
The  only  safety  is  in  believing  without  inquiry, 
receiving  implicitly  without  examining.  For  if  we 
allow  ourselves  to  inquire,  the  result  may  be,  that 
we  shall  reject,  and  rejection  will  indicate  "  a  dis- 
position of  heart,  inconsistent  with  the  humble 
spirit  of  Christian  faith." 

But  this,  I  am  persuaded,  cannot  have  been  the 
intention  of  the  author  of  the  Letters.  The  expres- 
sions must  have  been  used  in  haste,  without  well 
considering  their  import  and  bearing.  It  cannot 
have  been  his  design,  to  deter  those  whom  he  ad- 
dresses from  examining  the  evidences  of  a  doctrine, 
respecting  which  Christians  have  been  so  little 
agreed,  and  which  has  been  so  variously  understood 
and  explained,  by  those  who  receive  it. 

A  doctrine  which  we  cannot  deny,  without  in- 
curring the  charge  of  wanting  the  humble  spirit  of 
Christian  faith,  and  about  which  it  is  therefore 


103 

unsafe  to  allow  ourselves  to  inquire,  we  have  cer- 
tainly a  right  to  demand  to  find  either  distinctly 
and  intelligibly  expressed  in  the  scriptures,  or 
clearly  stated  and  explained  in  the  writings  of  those, 
who  propose  them  as  essential  parts  of  the  Christian 
doctrine.  But  where,  I  ask,  are  we  to  look  for  a 
clear  and  distinct  statement  of  the  orthodox  doc- 
trine of  Atonement?  The  genuine  doctrine  of 
Calvinism  is  indeed  stated  by  the  early  writers  of 
that  school  in  a  manner  sufficiently  clear  and  intel- 
ligible. But  every  feature  of  that  is  denied  as  a 
misrepresentation  of  the  orthodox  faith.  We  are 
told  that  the  language  of  the  orthodox,  like  that  of 
the  scriptures,  is  metaphorical,  not  to  be  understood 
literally  ;  and  I  in  vain  seek  for  such  an  explana- 
tion of  the  metaphors,  as  to  enable  me  to  understand 
what  is  the  distinct  doctrine,  which  is  intended  to 
be  maintained.  A  fleeting  and  shadowy  image  is 
presented  to  the  view,  which  eludes  every  attempt 
to  fix  its  shape,  and  dimensions,  and  features.  And 
can  it  be,  that  my  inability  to  receive  a  doctrine, 
expressed  in  words,  of  which  I  am  only  told  what 
they  do  not  mean,  and  not  what  they  do,  is  to  be 
regarded  as  "  an  indication  of  a  disposition  of  heart 
and  temper  of  mind,  which  is  in  total  contrariety  to 
the  humble  spirit  of  Christian  faith." 

There  are  some  other  sentiments  in  this  para- 
graph also,  which  must  not  be  passed  without 
notice.  It  is  asserted,  "  that  God,  having  sent  his 
Son  to  be  a  propitiation,  has  told  us,  that  we  must 
rely  upon  his  atoning  blood,  as  the  sole  ground  of 
forgiveness"    I  would  ask  where  God  has  told  us. 


104 

that  "the  atoning  blood  of  Christ  is  the  sole  ground 
of  forgiveness." 

I  find  the  prophet  Isaiah,  without  any  reference 
to  any  kind  of  atonement,  referring  the  forgiveness 
of  sin  solely  to  the  mercy  of  God,  by  which  he  is 
ready  to  accept  reformation  and  a  return  to  virtue. 
(Is.  lv.  7)  "Let  the  wicked  forsake  his  way,  and 
the  unrighteous  man  his  thoughts,  and  let  him 
return  unto  the  Lord,  and  he  will  have  mercy  upon 
him,  and  to  our  God,  for  he  will  abundantly  par- 
don." I  find  David,  in  the  depth  of  his  sorrow 
and  distress  in  the  consciousness  of  deep  and  aggra- 
vated guilt,  by  which  he  had  incurred  severe  tokens 
of  the  divine  displeasure  ;  in  pouring  forth  his 
humble  supplications  for  pardon,  placing  his  hope, 
in  no  sacrifice,  or  atonement,  but  solely  in  the 
mercy  of  God,  and  the  evidence  he  should  give  of 
true  repentance.  (Psalm  li.  1,  16,  17)  "  Have 
mercy  upon  me,  O  God,  according  to  thy  loving 
kindness,  according  to  the  multitude  of  thy  tender 
mercies,  blpt  out  my  transgressions."...."  Thou 
desirest  not  sacrifice,  else  would  I  give  it.  The 
sacrifices  of  God  are  a  broken  spirit ;  a  broken 
and  contrite  heart,  O  God,  thou  wilt  not  despise." 
I  find  John  the  baptist  announcing  the  approach  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  with  the  call  to  repentance, 
and  intimating  nothing  else  as  requisite,  preparatory 
to  being  the  fit  subjects  of  it,  but  that  men  should 
" repent"  and  "bring  forth  fruits  meet  for  repen- 
tance." (Matt,  iii.  2,  8)  I  find  Jesus  Christ  himself 
declaring,  (Matt.  vi.  14)  ''If  ye  forgive  men  their 
trespasses,  your  heavenly  Father  will  also  forgive 


105 

you."  And  I  find  it  the  object  of  one  of  his  most 
beautiful  and  touching  parables  (Luke  xv.)  to  teach 
his  followers,  not  that  God  demands  with  unrelent- 
ing severity  full  satisfaction  "in  the  atoning  blood 
and  perfect  righteousness"  of  another,  as  the  found- 
ation of  hope,  and  ground  of  forgiveness  ;  but  pro- 
claiming the  essential  mercy  and  placability  of  our 
heavenly  Father,  and  his  readiness,  not  only  to 
receive  and  restore  his  penitent  children,  but  to 
meet  with  joy  the  first  workings  of  ingenuous 
sorrow  and  a  sense  of  guilt,  and  the  first  symptoms 
of  a  disposition  and  wish  to  return  to  duty.  "When 
he  was  yet  a  great  way  off,  the  father  had  compas- 
sion on  him,  and  ran  to  meet  him."  To  this  com- 
passion and  reconciliation  he  was  solely  moved,  as 
far  as  we  are  informed,  by  the  return  of  the 
penitent  to  a  sense  of  his  guilt  and  his  duty  ;  "Fa- 
ther, I  have  sinned  against  heaven  and  in  thy 
sight,  and  am  no  more  worthy  to  be  called  thy 
son."...." This,  my  son,  was  dead,  and  is  alive 
again,  he  was  lost  and  is  found."  I  find  it  was  the 
prayers  and  alms  of  Cornelius  that  "came  up  into 
remembrance  with  God,"  and  that  "  in  every  nation 
he  that  feareth  God,  and  worketh  righteousness, 
is  declared  to  be  accepted  with  him."  (Acts 
x.  4,  35.) 

These  declarations,  and  numerous  others  of  the 
same  import,  must  surely  have  been  out  of  the  mind 
of  the  writer,  when  he  asserted,  in  the  words  I  have 
before  quoted,  "  that  God  has  told  us,  that  we  must 
rely  on  the  atoning  blood  of  his  son,  as  the  sole 
ground  of  forgiveness. 


106 

I  must  take  leave  also  to  correct  some  other 
expressions,  standing  in  close  connexion  with  this. 
It  is  implied  in  a  manner  not  to  be  misunderstood, 
in  the  paragraph  in  question,  that  Unitarians,  or 
those  who  reject  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement, 
"hope  for  heaven  on  the  footing  of  their  own  virtue 
or  good  works/7  (p.  105)  that  they  "think  them- 
selves entitled  to  future  happiness  on  their  own 
account,  and  rest  their  hopes  of  heaven  on  their 
own  goodness.*7  But  is  there  no  alternative  between 
"  relying  on  the  atoning  blood  of  the  son  of  God, 
as  the  sole  ground  of  forgiveness,*'  and  relying  on 
our  own  merit,  as  the  sole  ground  of  acceptance  ? 
Unitarians,  as  far  as  I  know,  and  as  far  as  I  can 
learn  from  their  writings,  are  equally  distant  from 
each  of  these  extremes.  Their  dependence  is  wholly 
on  the  mercy  of  God,  for  they  believe  that  all  men, 
on  account  of  their  actual  sin,  stand  in  need  of 
mercy,  and  are  wholly  incapable  of  meriting  salva- 
tion, and  claiming  it  as  a  matter  of  right ;  that 
mercy,  they  believe,  is  promised  to  all  who  repent : 
yet  that  the  salvation  of  the  best  cf  men  is  of  grace, 
and  not  of  debt,  what  they  cannot  demand  as  a 
right,  yet  may  claim  on  the  ground  of  the  divine 
promise.  A  promise,  too,  not  in  consideration  of 
satisfaction  having  been*  made  by  the  vicarious 
suffering  of  a  substitute,  but  originating  in  free 
sovereign  mercy,  and  contemplating  the  change  of 
character  implied  in  repentance,  as  alone  a  sufficient 
reason  for  this  exercise  of  it. 

But  though  Unitarians,   in  rejecting  the  ortho- 
dox  doctrine  of  atonement,  do  not  maintain   the 


107 

opinion  attributed  to  them  of  the  worth  and  suffi- 
ciency of  human  merit ;  yet  they  will  certainly  not 
acquiesce  in  the  opinion,  so  strongly  expressed  by 
the  author  of  the  Letters,  of  the  entire  worthless- 
ness  of  all  the  works  of  righteousness  and  good 
dispositions  of  men.  They  think  such  expressions 
equally  inconsistent  with  truth,  and  of  pernicious 
tendency.  For  if  human  virtue  be  thought  of  no 
value,  and  of  no  estimation  in  the  sight  of  God,  the 
motive  for  its  practice  is  weakened,  if  not  destroyed. 
We  shall  feel  little  interest  in  seeking  high  attain- 
ments in  that,  which  is  of  so  little  consideration,  or  is 
so  offensive,  that  it  must  not  be  named  in  the  presence 
of  God.  But  let  me  ask,  where  we  are  to  find  the 
inhibition  so  confidently  asserted.  Where  "has 
God  taught  us,  (p.  105)  that  no  works  of  righteous- 
ness which  we  have  done,  and  no  accomplishments 
or  dispositions  which  we  possess,  must  ever  be 
named  in  his  presence  ?"  I  find  instances  innumer- 
able, in  which  the  reverse  of  this  is  expressed  in  a 
very  clear  and  unequivocal  manner.  It  is  expres- 
sed by  Paul,  when  he  said,  (Rom.  ii.  6,  10)  "  God 
will  render  to  every  man  according  to  his  deeds," 
and  has  prepared  "  glory,  and  honour,  and  peace, 
for  every  man  that  worketh  good."  And  as  he 
thus  believed  that  the  good  deeds  of  good  men  were 
regarded  with  approbation  and  complacency  by 
their  Maker ;  so  he  was  certainly  not  aware  that  it 
was  either  criminal  or  improper  to  name  them  in  his 
presence,  when  he  so  exultingly  appealed  to  the 
course  of  his  past  life,  and  expressed  his  so  strong 
assurance  of  the  future  rewards  of  virtue  :  (2  Tim. 


108 

iv.  7)  "I  have  fought  a  good  fight,  I  have  finished 
my  course,  I  have  kept  the  faith  ;  henceforth  there 
is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of  righteousness,  which  the 
Lord,  the  righteous  Judge,  shall  give  me  at  that 
day." 

Such  a  thought  must  have  been  far  from  the 
mind  of  our  Saviour,  when  he  directed  his  disciples 
to  plead  their  good  deeds  in  their  supplications  to 
God  for  his  mercy ;  (Matt.  vi.  12)  "Forgive  us  our 
debts,  as  we  forgive  our  debtors,"  with  the  express 
assurance,  that  this  plea  will  not  be  disregarded, 
"  for  if  ye  forgive  men  their  trespasses,  your  heav- 
enly Father  will  also  forgive  you."  Such  a  thought 
seems  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  declaration, 
"That  the  son  of  man  will  come  in  the  glory  of  his 
Father,  and  will  then  reward  every  man  according 
to  his  works ;"  (Matt.  xvi.  27)  for  such  a  declaration 
implies,  that  the  works  of  men  are  of  some  account 
in  the  mind  of  Him,  who  will  be  their  judge,  are  to 
be  brought  into  solemn  account,  and  to  furnish  the 
grounds  of  the  decisions  of  the  great  day. 

I  would  request  you  also  to  compare  with  the 
assertion  under  consideration,  "  that  God  has 
taught  us  that  no  works  of  righteousness  which 
we  have  done,  and  no  accomplishments  or  dispo- 
sitions, which  we  possess,  must  ever  be  named  in 
his  presence  ;"  the  parable  of  the  talents  in  the 
xxv.  chap,  of  Matthew,  and  the  representation  of 
the  final  judgment  in  a  more  direct  form,  which 
immediately  follows  it.  To  whom  and  upon  what 
ground,  in  the  former  case,  was  the  eulogy  pro- 
nounced, and  the  reward  assigned;  "Well  done 


109 

good  and  faithful  servant,  thou  hast  been  faithful 
over  a  few  things,  I  will  make  thee  ruler  over 
many  things  ?"  And  in  the  latter,  to  whom  was 
addressed  the  welcome,  £<  Come,  ye  blessed  of  my 
Father,  inherit  the  kingdom  prepared  for  you 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world  ??>  It  was  in  each 
-case  the  faithful,  the  humane,  and  the  obedient ; 
and  in  each  case  it  was  the  good  deeds  they  had 
done,  "  the  good  dispositions  they  had  manifested, 
the  fidelity  with  which  they  had  used  the  talents 
entrusted  to  them,  the  kindness  with  which  they 
had  conducted  in  the  relations  in  which  they  were 
placed,  that  recommended  them  to  the  approbation 
of  the  judge,  and  procured  for  them  the  rewards 
he  had  to  distribute.  No  allusion  is  made  to  a 
u  perfect  righteousness,  which  God  has  provided 
for  them"  to  supersede  their  own  personal  right- 
eousness, or  to  render  it  valueless.  Indeed  noth- 
ing can  be  more  clear,  than  that  if  it  be  of  no 
value,  of  no  account,  and  not  to  be  named  in  the 
presence  of  God,  it  is  not  worth  our  pursuit,  and 
those  are  the  truly  wise,  who  place  their  whole 
dependence  on  the  worthiness  of  Him,  who  was 
righteous  for  them,  and  trouble  not  themselves 
about  the  attainment  of  personal  righteousness, 
which  being  of  no  account,  can  be  of  no  use. 

I  know  that  this  consequence  will  be  rejected 
with  abhorrence  by  every  serious   believer  in  the 
doctrine ;  but  I  know,  too,  that  it   does  not  follow 
with  the  less  certainty  from  it. 
14 


110 

LETTER  VI. 

The  subject  to  which  I  would  next  call  your 
attention  is  that  of  divine  influence  ;  the  discussion 
of  which  occupies  the  tenth  letter  of  Dr.  Woods. 
Upon  this  subject  we  must  keep  carefully  in  mind 
the  distinction  between  the  general  doctrine,  and 
that  which  is  peculiar  to  Calvinism.  It  is  with  the 
latter  only  that  we  are  concerned  as  a  subject  of 
controversy.  To  the  indistinctness  and  obscurity, 
which  arises  from  confounding  them  together,  we 
owe  much  of  the  difficulty,  in  which  this  subject  is 
usually  involved. 

As  to  the  general  doctrine  of  divine  influence,  I 
observe,  there  is  no  controversy.  It  is  implied  in 
the  government  of  providence,  in  the  acknowledg- 
ment of  dependence  on  God,  and  in  every  prayer. 
We  may  suppose  it  to  be  direct  and  immediate,  or 
only  such  as  reaches  us  through  the  instrumental- 
ity of  those  means,  by  which  common  effects  are 
usually  produced,  and  thus  not  distinguishable  from 
the  common  course  of  nature.  None,  I  suppose, 
will  deny  the  possibility  of  a  direct  access  to  the 
human  mind  by  him,  who  gave  being  and  all  its 
powers  to  that  mind;  and  the  reality  of  it  will 
always  be  a  fact,  depending  like  every  other  fact 
upon  evidence ;  to  be  received  or  rejected  as  the 
evidence  is  perceived  to  be  satisfactory  or  not. 

It  will  not,  I  presume,  be  pretended,  that  the 
direct  influence  of  the  spirit  of  God  upon  the  mind  is 
of  such  a  nature,  that  men  can  be  conscious  of  it  at  the 


Ill 

time,  so  as  to  distinguish  it  with  certainty  from  the 
natural  operations  of  the  mind  under  the  influence  of 
external  circumstances,  and  the  variety  of  motives, 
which  are  presented  to  it.  There  can  then  be  no 
evidence  of  it  in  any  particular  instance.  Our  proof 
of  the  doctrine  must  be  drawn,  not  from  experience 
or  observation,  but  solely  from  those  texts  of  scrip- 
ture, which  are  supposed  to  assert  it ;  and  those 
are  to  be  subjected  to  just  rules  of  interpretation, 
in  order  to  ascertain,  whether  that,  and  that  only, 
can  have  been  the  meaning  of  the  spirit  that  dic- 
tated them. 

But  without  any  immediate  and  direct  influence 
upon  the  mind,  the  most  important  effects  may  be 
produced,  and  changes  brought  about  within  us,  by 
a  variety  of  instruments  and  means,  in  a  manner 
analogous  to  that,  in  which  all  the  great  purposes 
of  God  are  accomplished  in  the  natural  and  moral 
world.  God  is  to  be  acknowledged,  his  hand  is  to 
he  seen,  the  operations  of  his  spirit  appear  in  all 
the  events  that  take  place.  Yet  not  a  direct  and 
immediate  agency  is  to  be  perceived.  Instruments 
and  means  are  employed,  but  the  hand  that  employs 
them  is  unseen.  Not  seldom  a  long  and  circuitous 
train  of  them,  the  connexions  and  combinations  of 
which  it  is  not  in  our  power  to  trace,  conceals  from 
our  view  the  spirit  that  guides,  and  the  power  that 
effects  the  whole. 

Nor  is  it  only  great  events,  and  the  accomplish- 
ment of  great  purposes,  that  we  are  to  trace  to  the 
agency  of  the  spirit  of  God.  It  extends  not  less  to 
the  common  provisions  and  constant  occurrences  of 


112 

life  ;  to  the  food  by  which  our  life  is  supported,  and 
every  provision  by  which  it  is  made  comfortable. 
These  are  the  gift  of  God  ;  not  directly,  not  inde- 
pendently of  our  exertions,  nor  without  the  exer- 
tions of  others,  but  by  employing  them  both.  God 
is  also  the  preserver  of  our  lives,  and  is  to  be  so 
acknowledged  in  all  the  common,  as  well  as  the 
uncommon  exigences  of  our  being.  Not,  however, 
by  immediate  acts  of  power,  and  a  direct  agency, 
is  this  done,  but  by  the  instrumentality  of  an  infin- 
ite variety  and  complicated  system  of  means.  Of 
these  means,  our  own  exertions,  and  the  assistance 
of  others,  constitute  an  essential,  and  a  principal 
part.  If  they  are  neglected  or  withheld,  the  pro- 
tecting care  of  heaven  is  withheld.  We  perish.  A 
miracle  is  not  wrought  to  save  him,  who  takes  no 
care  to  save  himself. 

It  is  in  a  similar  manner,  by  instruments  and 
means,  not  by  a  direct  action  upon  the  mind,  that 
the  spirit  of  God  produces  its  great  effects  in 
bringing  men  to  repentance,  holiness,  and  virtue. 
Among  these,  the  most  important  are  the  instruc- 
tions of  the  holy  scriptures.  "  The  word  of  God 
(1  Pet.  i.  £3)  is  the  incorruptible  seed,  by  which 
men  are  born  again."  Whatever  good  influences 
are  produced  by  it,  are  influences  of  the  spirit  of 
God.  The  same  may  be  said  of  Christian  institu- 
tions, religious  assemblies,  public  worship.  The 
usual  course  of  providence,  but  especially  deviations 
from  it  in  remarkable  events  and  uncommon  phe- 
nomena, are  means  for  accomplishing  the  same 
purposes.  The  same  also  is  to  be  said  of  the  priest- 


113 

hood;  religious  rites,  and  prophetic  office  under  the 
former  dispensation,  and  the  Christian  ministry, 
and  the  whole  system  of  written  and  oral  instruc- 
tion under  the  present.  And  those  who  are  thus 
employed  in  u  converting  sinners  from  the  error  of 
their  ways,  and  turning  many  to  righteousness," 
are  represented  as  "  ambassadors  of  Christ."  They 
are  his  agents,  act  in  his  stead,  and,  whatever  effects 
are  produced,  they  are  the  proper  fruits  of  the 
spirit,  and  may  be  considered  as  the  work  of  that 
spirit,  which  projected  the  great  scheme,  and  which 
provides  for  and  directs  its  execution. 

NowT,  were  there  nothing  more  direct  and  imme- 
diate, than  those  influences,  which  have  now  been 
mentioned,  there  would  he  enough  to  answer  to 
most  of  the  language  of  the  Bible  on  the  subject  ; 
enough  to  give  a  fair  and  important  meaning  to  all 
the  texts  alluded  to  by  Dr.  Woods,  (p.  107)  Those 
are  the  instruments  and  means  by  which  God 
is  constantly  "  working  in  men  both  to  will  and 
to  do  ;  creating  in  them  a  new  heart  and  a  new 
spirit ;  opening  their  eyes,  drawing,  turning,  re- 
newing, strengthening  them,  helping  their  infirmi- 
ties." 

All  that  is  said  to  show,  that  a  divine  influence 
upon  the  mind  may  he  consistent  with  human  liberty 
and  proper  activity,  is  to  no  purpose  ;  for  neither 
the  reality  of  a  divine  influence,  nor  its  consistency 
with  human  liberty  and  activity  is  denied.  That 
is  not  the  question  in  dispute  between  Unitarians 
and  Calvinists.  The  question  is,  whether  the 
doctrine  of  divine  influence,  in  the  peculiar  sense  in 


114 

which  it  is  held  by  Calvinists,  is  consistent  with 
human  liberty  and  activity.  Nor  is  it  whether 
they  affirm  it  to  be  so,  but  whether  it  can  be  shown 
to  be  so  in  reality. 

It  is  in  vain  that  Dr.  Woods  has  blended  to- 
gether and  confounded  the  general  doctrine  of  divine 
influence,  which  is  held  by  Christians  in  common, 
with  the  peculiar  doctrine  of  Calvinism  respecting 
special  irresistible  grace.  In  vain  has  he  softened 
down  the  offensive  features  of  the  system,  and 
explained  away,  or  endeavoured  to  give  an  unex- 
ceptionable meaning  to  the  terms  irresistible,  over- 
powering, invincible,  used  by  the  Orthodox  in  rela- 
tion to  the  subject.  The  import  of  these  terms  is 
to  be  found  in  the  known  and  avowed  doctrines  of 
Calvinism,  as  they  are  stated  by  the  most  approved 
writers,  and  in  the  Confessions  of  Faith  deliberately 
drawn  up  by  Councils,  and  received  by  churches, 
which  profess  to  make  the  Calvinistic  faith  their 
standard. 

Now,  according  to  these,  "  all  those,  whom  God 
hath  predestinated  to  life,  and  those  only,  he  is 
pleased  in  his  appointed  time,  effectually  to  call  by 
his  word  and  spirit,  out  of  that  state  of  sin  and  death 
in  which  they  are  by  nature,  to  grace  and  salvation 
by  Jesus  Christ." — "  This  effectual  call  is  of  God's 
free  and  special  grace  alone  ;  not  from  any  thing  at 
all  foreseen  in  man,  who  is  altogether  passive 
therein,  until,  being  quickened  and  renewed  by  the 
holy  spirit,  he  is  thereby  enabled  to  answer  this 
call." — "  Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  re- 
generated and  saved  by  Christ,  so  also  are  all  other 


115 

elect  persons,  who  are  incapable  of  being  outwardly 
called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word." — "  Others  not 
elected,  although  they  may  be  called  by  the  ministry 
of  the  word,  and  may  have  some  common  operations 
of  the  spirit,  yet  they  never  truly  come  to  Christ, 
and  therefore  cannot  be  saved.  Much  less  can  men, 
not  professing  the  Christian  religion,  be  saved  in 
any  other  way  whatever,  be  they  never  so  diligent 
to  frame  their  lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature, 
and  the  law  of  that  religion  they  do  profess." 
(  Westminster  Confession. J 

In  the  above  extracts  from  an  instrument  of  high 
authority,  we  have  a  clear  and  distinct  statement  of 
the  orthodox  doctrine  respecting  that  influence  of 
the  spirit,  by  which  regeneration  is  effected ;  and 
by  which  alone  men  can  be  brought  out  of  that  state 
of  sin  and  death  in  which  they  are  by  nature,  and 
brought  into  a  state  of  salvation.  It  is  an  influence 
confined  to  the  elect ;  granted  exclusively  to  those, 
who  are  predestinated  to  eternal  life ;  granted  to 
them  also  in  a  perfectly  arbitrary  manner;  not 
being  on  account  of  any  thing  foreseen  in  them,  still 
less  on  account  of  any  thing  already  in  them  :  since, 
until  it  takes  place,  they  are,  according  to  this 
scheme,  in  a  state  of  sin  and  death,  wholly  inclined 
to  evil,  and  indisposed  to  all  good.  In  those,  upon 
whom  this  influence  is  exerted,  its  effects  take  place 
without  any  agency  or  cooperation  of  theirs,  for 
they  are  wholly  passive  in  it.  It  is  the  irresistible 
and  unaided  work  of  the  spirit  of  God,  which  man 
can  do  nothing  either  to  assist  or  to  prevent.  In  all 
those,  who  are  the  subject  of  it,  it  is  effectual,  and 


116 

their  regeneration  and  final  salvation  are  sure. 
Those  to  whom  this  influence  is  denied,  or  from 
whom  it  is  withheld,  are  not  elected ;  and  they  can 
never  be  regenerated,  and  consequently  their  salva- 
tion is  impossible. 

It  will  be  objected,  perhaps,  that  the  Orthodox, 
though  they  receive  in  general  and  substantially 
the  doctrines  contained  in  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith  and  Catechism,  yet  they  are  not 
satisfied  with  them  in  all  respects,  and  do  not 
subscribe  to  all  their  language. 

To  this  objection  they  have  an  undoubted  right, 
and  Dr.  Woods,  as  their  representative,  has  a  right 
to  be  judged  upon  a  fair  construction  of  the  language, 
which  is  used  in  the  Creed  of  the  Theological  Insti- 
tution with  which  he  is  connected  ;  and  that  which 
he  has  himself  used,  as  far  as  he  has  proceeded  in 
giving  a  statement  and  explanation  of  the  doctrine. 

But  little,  I  think,  will  be  gained  by  this  toward 
relieving  the  doctrine,  which  he  means  to  maintain, 
from  the  charges  which  are  brought  against  the 
orthodox  system  on  this  point. 

In  the  following  extracts  from  the  Creed  of  the 
Theological  Institution  at  Andover,  I  think  you  will 
find  every  important  idea  expressed  or  implied,  that 
is  to  be  found  in  the  passages  before  given  from  the 
Westminster  Confession.  "  By  nature  every  man 
is  personally  depraved,  destitute  of  holiness,  unlike 
and  opposed  to  God,  and  previously  to  the  renewing 
agency  of  the  divine  spirit,  all  his  moral  actions  are 
adverse  to  the  character  and  glory  of  God  ;  being 
morally  incapable  of  recovering  the  image  of  his 


117 

Creator,  which  was  lost  in  Adam,  every  man  is  justly 
exposed  to  eternal  damnation  ;  so  that  except  a  man 
be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God  ; 
....God,  of  his  mere  good  pleasure,  from  all  eternity 
elected  some  to  everlasting  life. ...no  means  whatever 
can  change  the  heart  of  a  sinner,  and  make  it  holy 
....regeneration  and  sanctification  are  effects  of  the 
creating  and  renewing  agency  of  the  holy  spirit." 
A  cursory  reading  of  Dr.  Woods'  Letter  on  this 
subject  might  lead  to  an  impression  of  something- 
short  of  the  doctrine  expressed  in  these  extracts  ; 
but  the  following  sentence,  taken  in  the  connexion 
in  which  it  is  used,  and  in  connexion  with  the  other 
doctrines  defended  in  his  Letters,  will  be  found,  I 
think,  to  express  or  imply  all  that  is  contained  in 
the  fuller  and  more  naked  and  undisguised  state- 
ment of  the  Westminster  Divines.  He  is  speaking 
of  the  meaning  of  the  words  irresistible,  overpower- 
ing, as  used  by  orthodox  writers,  in  reference  to  the 
divine  influence  upon  the  minds  of  men,  when  he 
says  (p.  116,)  "  What  the  nature  of  the  disorder  is, 
God  knows,  and  is  perfectly  able  to  apply  a  suitable 
and  efficacious  remedy.  Now,  when  this  almighty 
Physician  kindly  undertakes  the  cure  of  our  souls, 
the  obstinacy  of  the  disorder  yields  ;  its  resistance 
is  taken  away  :  that  is  to  say,  the  heart  is  effectually 
cleansed  from  its  pollution  ;  love  of  sin,  enmity  to 
God,  pride,  ingratitude,  and  selfish,  earthly  desires 
are  subdued,  and  man  is  induced  to  love  God,  and 
obey  his  commands. v  He  had  before  explained  the 
orthodox  faith  in  general  by  saying  (p.  108,)  "We 

believe,  that  all  virtue  or  holiness  in  man  is  to    be 
15 


118 

ascribed  to  the  influence  of  the  divine  spirit,  and 
that  without  the  effectual  agency  of  the  spirit,  man 
would  have  no  holy  affections,  and  perform  no  acts 
of  holy  obedience." 

Now  what  is  the  disorder,  to  which  the  effica- 
cious remedy  is  to  be  applied  ;  and  for  which,  as 
we  shall  see,  there  is  no  other  cure  ?  If  we  look 
back  to  the  fifth  and  sixth  letters  of  Dr.  Woods,  we 
shall  find  it  described.  It  is  a  state  of  entire  moral 
corruption,  in  which  every  man  is  born  into  the 
world,  and  in  which  every  man  continues  until  he 
is  renewed  by  the  holy  spirit.  It  is,  that  men  are 
by  nature,  that  is,  as  they  came  first  from  the  hand 
of  the  Creator,  destitute  of  holiness ;  not  only  so, 
but  subjects  of  an  innate  moral  depravity,  from  the 
first  inclined  to  evil,  and  while  unrenewed,  their 
affections  and  actions  wholly  wrong.  This  is  the 
disease,  as  to  its  nature  and  extent. 

Passing  to  the  next  letters,  seventh  and  eighth, 
we  are  told  to  whom,  and  on  what  ground,  a  cure  is 
applied.  Those,  who  are  to  be  delivered  from 
this  moral  bondage,  this  original  state  of  depravity, 
to  be  regenerated,  renewed,  and  saved,  are  selected 
from  the  mass  of  mankind  by  a  sovereign  act  of  the 
divine  will,  without  any  thing  in  them,  as  the  reason 
why  they  were  chosen,  rather  than  the  others,  who 
are  passed  by,  left  to  remain  in  sin,  and  to  perish 
for  ever. 

Being  thus  elected,  thus  predestinated  to  eternal 
life,  they  become  the  subjects  of  the  efficacious, 
renovating  influence,  under  consideration.  And 
when  this  i(  almighty  Physician  undertakes  the  cure, 


119 

the  disorder  yields."  He  cannot  be  defeated.  He 
cannot  be  resisted.  The  fact  then  is,  that  all, 
whom  God  undertakes  to  renew,  all  to  whom  he 
applies  that  effectual  influence,  which  is  to  subdue 
the  obstinacy  of  the  disorder,  are  in  fact  renewed. 
The  love  of  sin  and  enmity  to  God  are  subdued, 
and  they  are  brought  to  the  love  of  God  and  obe- 
dience. And  this  effect  is  produced,  because  he 
who  knows  the  disorder  has  known  how  to  apply  a 
remedy ;  and  has  applied  one,  which  must  produce 
a  cure. 

It  follows,  then,  that  this  remedy  has  been 
applied  to  no  others.  Those  who  are  not  renewed 
have  none  of  this  influence  employed  upon  them  ; 
for  if  they  had,  they  also  would  have  been  renewed, 
since  this  influence  is  efficacious,  cannot  be  resisted, 
cannot  be  defeated.  Their  failure  then  is  for  the 
want  of  that,  which  is  granted  to  the  others,  and 
without  which  it  was  impossible  for  them  to  be 
renewed  and  saved.  "  All  virtue,  all  holiness  in 
man  is  to  be  ascribed  to  this  efficacious  influence  ; 
without  it  man  would  have  no  holy  affections,  and 
would  perform  no  acts  of  holy  obedience."  (p.  108) 
Those,  then,  who  have  holiness  and  virtue,  have  it 
solely  in  consequence  of  their  having  this  influence, 
which  makes  them,  and  cannot  fail  to  make  them 
holy  ;  and  those  who  have  none,  but  remain  unholy, 
sinful,  enemies  to  God,  are  destitute  of  it  solely 
because  they  have  not  that  influence,  which,  if  they 
had,  could  not  fail  to  produce  the  same  effect  in 
them,  which  it  has  produced  in  others.  This  is  but 
a  fair  and  full,  unexaggerated  development  of  the 


120 

doctrine,  according  to  Dr.  Woods'  own  statement 
of  it.  And  whether  it  be  not  in  every  point  the 
same  as  that  which  is  more  clearly  stated  in  the 
Westminster  Confession,  every  one  can  judge. 

From  the  doctrine,  thus  stated,  Unitarians,  I 
believe,  generally  dissent,  and  maintain  a  very 
different  opinion  on  the  subject.  They  dissent, 
because  they  think  it  inconsistent  with  all  the  rep- 
resentations we  have  in  the  scriptures  of  the  moral 
character  of  God,  and  with  the  condition  of  man, 
as  a  free  and  accountable  being  ; — inconsistent  with 
all  those  texts,  which  complain  of  the  sins  of  men  ; 
because,  by  the  supposition,  they  act  only  accord- 
ing to  the  nature  given  them,  and  could  not  act 
otherwise  without  assistance  and  influence,  which 
are  not  given  to  them  ; — inconsistent  with  all  the 
commands  of  the  Gospel  to  believe,  repent,  be  re- 
newed, and  to  love  God  with  the  whole  heart ;  since 
they  have  no  ability  to  do  any  part  of  this,  till 
almighty  power  is  exerted  to  make  them  willing  ; 
and  it  is  equally  impossible  for  them  not  to  do  it, 
when  this  power  is  exerted  ; — inconsistent  with  the 
sincerity  of  all  exhortations,  encouragements,  and 
promises  to  the  exertions  of  men,  since  it  supposes 
them  incapable  of  willing  to  perform  either  of  these 
acts  ;  that  it  is  not  of  themselves  to  will  any  thing 
good,  but  they  depend  for  it  on  an  influence,  over 
which  they  have  no  control,  and  which  they  can  do 
nothing  to  procure. 

Taking  this  doctrine  of  an  efficacious  influence, 
without  which  there  can  be  no  holy  affection,  and 
no  act  of  holy  obedience,  in  connexion  with  the 


121 

whole  scheme  of  doctrine,  of  which  it  makes  an 
essential  part ;  we  are  unable  to  reconcile  it  with 
the  paternal  character  of  God,  or  a  righteous  gov- 
ernment, or  to  perceive  how  it  can  consist  with  a 
moral  accountability.  We  are  unable  to  see  how 
the  character  of  God  can  be  vindicated,  in  creating 
beings  with  a  nature  totally  depraved,  inclined  only 
to  evil,  demanding  of  them  holiness,  which  they 
are  utterly  unable  to  exercise,  without  an  irresistible 
influence  in  renewing  their  hearts,  and  giving  them 
right  dispositions  and  desires ;  which  influence  he 
grants  to  some,  and  denies  to  others,  without  any 
difference  in  them  as  the  ground  or  reason  of  the 
distinction  ;  and  punishing  those  for  not  exercising 
this  holiness,  to  whom  he  had  never  granted  the 
assistance,  without  which  it  was  never  possible  to 
them.  And  we  are  equally  unable  to  see  how  those 
could  be  accountable  for  their  actions,  and  the 
subjects  of  reasonable  blame  for  their  unholy  and 
wicked  lives,  who  were  brought  into  being  with 
hearts  totally  corrupt,  inclined  to  evil,  and  evil 
only,  and  from  whom  that  efficacious  renovating 
influence  has  been  withheld,  without  which  it  was 
never  possible  for  them  to  be  renewed,  to  "have 
any  holy  affections,  or  to  perform  any  acts  of  holy 
obedience.7'  The  sinner  seems  upon  this  scheme 
to  have  a  perfect  apology  to  offer  for  his  continuing 
in  sin  ;  a  complete  and  satisfactory  excuse  for  every 
defect  and  for  every  crime,  however  numerous,  and 
however  great. 

It  may  be  useful  to  give  you  a  distinct  statement 
of  the  several  points,  in  which  our  views  upon  this 


122 

subject  are  at  variance  with  those,  which  we  find 
advocated  by  Dr.  Woods.  In  the  first  place,  a 
different  account  of  the  moral  nature  of  man,  and 
his  character  and  disposition,  as  he  comes  from 
the  hand  of  the  Creator,  leads  to  a  different  opinion 
correspondent  to  it,  of  what  is  necessary,  in  order 
to  his  becoming  holy,  and  a  fit  subject  of  the  appro- 
bation and  favour  of  the  Author  of  his  being.  Not 
seeing  in  him  a  nature  wholly  corrupt,  inclined 
only  to  evil,  and  an  enemy  of  God,  we  perceive  no 
necessity  for  an  almighty,  irresistible  influence  to 
be  employed  for  the  purpose  of  producing  an  entire 
change  of  nature,  opposite  inclinations,  dispositions, 
and  course  of  action  from  those,  to  which  he  was 
directed  by  his  natural  constitution.  Believing 
him  to  possess  faculties  and  affections,  equally 
capable  of  a  right  and  a  wrong  direction,  neither 
morally  good  nor  bad  by  nature,  but  equally  capable 
of  becoming  either,  we  see  a  moral  discipline  under 
which  he  is  placed,  adapted  to  such  a  nature,  such 
capacities,  and  such  dispositions.  The  influence 
and  agency  of  the  spirit  of  God  is  to  be  acknowl- 
edged in  the  whole  of  that  discipline  which  is  in- 
tended to  improve,  exalt,  and  perfect  our  nature, 
or  to  correct  any  wrong  tendencies  it  may  have 
acquired,  and  restore  it  to  a  right  direction,  and  its 
previous  purity. 

In  this  light  are  to  be  viewed  all  the  means  and 
the  motives  of  religion,  the  institutions  of  society, 
the  course  of  providence,  events  calculated  to  lead 
to  reflection,  to  produce  seriousness,  to  give  us 
just  views  of  our  nature,  condition,  duty,  prospects, 


123 

and  hopes  ;  what  we  are,  and  what  we  ought  to  be, 
or  are  designed  to  be.  Whatever  is  adapted  to 
subdue  the  power  of  sin,  to  control  the  bad  passions, 
and  to  bring  us  to  the  love  of  holiness,  and  the 
practice  of  every  virtue.  In  all  this  the  agency  of 
God  is  to  be  acknowledged,  as  the  purposes  of  God 
are  to  be  perceived.  Not  a  direct  and  immediate 
agency,  but  such  as  we  see  exercised  in  every  thing 
else  through  the  universe  ;  God  bringing  about  his 
ends  by  a  variety  of  means,  and  employing  in  them 
the  subordinate  agency  and  instrumentality  of  his 
creatures. 

It  is  by  such  means,  that  the  spirit  of  God  pro- 
duces its  great  moral  effects,  operates  on  the  minds 
and  hearts  of  men,  reconciles  them  to  God,  works 
in  them  to  will  and  to  do  his  good  pleasure.  These 
influences  are  distributed  to  men  in  very  unequal 
measure,  and  with  infinite  variety,  as  to  kind  and 
degree.  The  impartiality  of  the  common  parent  is 
manifested,  not  in  employing  the  same  means  with 
all,  and  exerting  upon  all  the  same  influence,  but 
by  rendering  to  all  according  to  the  manner  in 
which  they  act  under  the  influence  that  is  employed 
upon  them,  whatever  that  may  be,  as  to  kind  and 
degree  ;  not  in  giving  to  all  the  same  number  of 
talents,  and  of  the  same  value,for  use;  but  render- 
ing to  all  according  to  the  use  they  make  of  their 
talents,  whether  few  or  many.  And  here  they  find 
room  for  the  particular  and  perhaps  direct  and 
immediate  influence  of  the  spirit  upon  those,  who 
have  made  a  good  use  of  common  privileges,  upon 
the  principle,  that  "to  him  that  hath,  more  shall  be 


124 

given."  More  shall  be  given  to  him,  who  has  made 
a  good  use  of  that  which  he  has,  whether  much  or 
little. 

Accordingly,  Unitarians  generally  do  not  reject 
the  notion  of  a  direct  and  immediate  influence  of 
the  spirit  of  God  on  the  human  mind.  They  believe 
that  there  may  be  circumstances  of  great  trial, 
strong  temptation  and  peculiar  difficulty,  that  call 
for  extraordinary  assistance,  and  that  those  who 
have  manifested  a  disposition  to  make  a  good  use 
of  the  ordinary  means  afforded,  will  have  further 
aid  suited  to  their  exigences,  and  sufficient  by  a 
proper  use  to  answer  to  *beitf  necessities.  They 
suppose  also  that  any  extraordinary  assistance  will 
be  granted  only  to  those,  who  ask  it ;  that  it  will 
be  granted  to  previous  good  disposition,  and  a  sense 
of  need  and  dependance.  That  God  will  give  the 
holy  spirit  to  them  who  ask,  to  them  who  have 
already  right  feelings,  are  sensible  of  their  weakness 
and  wants,  and  ask  the  mercy  of  God  to  supply 
them. 


125 

LETTER  VII. 

I  now  follow  Dr.  Woods  in  calling  your  attention 
to  a  few  remarks  on  the  influence  and  moral  tendency 
of  the  Unitarian  compared  with  the  Trinitarian 
and  Calvinistic  scheme ;  premising  however  the 
caution,  that  we  must  not  confound,  in  our  exam- 
ination, as  is  too  apt  to  be  done,  the  moral  tendency 
with  the  effects  actually  produced  ;  and  that  even 
when  this  error  is  not  committed,  too  much  weight 
is  not  to  be  given  to  any  argument  drawn  from  such 
a  comparison  on  either  side.  The  reason  is,  that 
mankind  are  less  influenced  in  their  conduct  by 
their  speculative  opinions,  and  the  character  of 
their  faith,  than  we  are  ready  to  imagine.  Were 
we  purely  intellectual  beings,  governed  wholly  by 
reason,  there  would  be  no  such  uncertainty  or  falla- 
cy in  our  deductions.  We  could  calculate  with 
certainty  how  men  would  act,  by  knowing  what  they 
believed  ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  what  was  the 
character  of  their  faith,  by  their  course  of  life. 
But  men  have  also  passions  and  affections,  on  the 
one  hand ;  and  these  not  only  serve  to  corrupt 
and  pervert  the  understanding,  but  where  they  fail 
to  do  thi  s,  they  yet  are  able  to  overpower  the  will, 
so  as  t(j  lead  them  to  act  in  opposition  to  reason 
and  frith  ; — and  on  the  other  hand  they  have  con- 
scien  ce  and  a  moral  sense,  which,  however  the 
understanding  may  have  been  blinded,  or  misled, 
or  perverted,  will  sometimes  preserve  them  in  a 
right  course  of  conduct;  in  defiance  of  an  absurd  or 
16 


126 

a  corrupting  faith.  Still  there  is  a  general  influence 
of  right  views  and  a  pure  faith,  which  is  not  incon- 
siderable, nor  uncertain. 

But  when  we  come  to  speak  of  the  practical 
influence  of  different  forms  of  christian  faith,  we  are 
to  take  into  our  consideration,  that  there  are  cer- 
tain great  principles,  and  those  the  most  fundamen- 
tal, and  influential  upon  the  conduct  of  life,  which 
the  several  sects  of  Christians  hold  in  common.  So 
that  great  as  the  difference  is  between  the  Unitarian 
and  the  Trinitarian  faith ;  on  account  of  the  funda- 
mental principles  held  in  common,  the  difference 
of  their  practical  tendency  is  less,  probably,  than 
ardent  and  zealous  partizans  on  either  side  are 
ready  to  imagine.  Still,  however,  it  is  believed 
that  the  difference  in  several  respects  cannot  be 
very  small. 

I  am  ready  to  accede  to  the  statement  implied 
in  what  is  said  by  Dr.  Woods,  pp.  135 — 141  ;  that 
the  practical  influence  of  a  scheme  of  faith  will  bear 
some  proportion  to  the  exhibition  it  gives,  "of  a 
being  of  infinite  perfection  as  the  object  of  worship; 
a  moral  government  marked  with  holiness  and 
righteousness  throughout ;  and  the  manner  in  which 
mercy  is  exercised  toward  offenders  under  this 
government.7' 

These  are  the  great  points,  upon  whieh  the 
Unitarian  and  Calvinistic  doctrine  are  at  variance, 
and  with  this  difference  in  view,  Dr.  Woods  en- 
deavours to  show  the  favourable  influence  of  thf* 
latter  above  the  former  in  several  respects. 

In  the  first  place,  with  respect  to  love  to  GocL 


127 

Now  it  will  be  sufficient  to  remark  on  this  point, 
that  the  practical  influence  of  a  doctrine  will  de- 
pend, not  on  the  words  in  which  it  is  expressed, 
but  on  the  images,  which  are  presented  to  the  mind. 
However  we  may  speak  in  words  of  the  perfect 
justice,  benevolence,  and  mercy  of  God  ;  our  feel- 
ings and  affections  will  wholly  follow  the  images  in 
which  he  is  presented  to  us  in  the  dispositions 
towards  his  creatures,  and  the  actions  respecting 
them,  which  are  attributed  to  him.  If  those  are 
such,  as  in  any  other  being  would  be  thought  arbi- 
trary, or  unjust,  or  cruel ;  it  will  be  in  vain  for  us 
to  speak  of  them  in  words,  that  express  all  the 
kindness  and  benignity  of  the  paternal  character. 
The  question  then  will  be,  not  what  are  the  epithets 
which  the  two  systems  apply  to  God,  for  they  both 
apply  the  same  ;  but  what  are  the  actions  they 
attribute  to  him,  what  the  images,  under  which 
they  present  him,  what  the  principles  and  measures 
of  his  government  ?  In  these  respects  enough  has 
before  been  said  to  show  how  the  comparison  will 
stand. 

Love  to  Christ,  and  the  value  at  which  we  esti- 
mate the  benefits  we  receive  through  him,  will 
depend  on  our  view  of  the  nature  and  value  of  those 
benefits,  and  not  at  all  on  the  rank  he  holds  in  the 
scale  of  being.  Unitarian  views  indeed  ascribing 
to  him  only  what  he  claimed  himself,  derived  excel- 
lences, and  a  subordinate  agency,  will  not  allow  us 
to  give  him  the  supremacy  of  affection,  any  more 
than  the  glory,  which  was  due  to  God  only.  It 
teaches  us  to  love  him,  to  be  grateful  to  him,  and 


128 

trust  in  him,  as  him  who  was  appointed  by  the 
Father  to  execute  his  purposes  of  benevolence; 
and  who  voluntarily  did  and  suffered  all  that  was 
necessary  to  procure  for  us  the  forgiveness  of  sin, 
reconciliation  with  God,  and  eternal  life.  These  are 
benefits,  with  which  nothing  that  is  done  by  any 
other  finite  being  can  bear  any  comparison ;  they 
are  such  as  entitle  him  to  affection,  and  gratitude, 
and  trust ;  such  as  we  owe,  and  can  owe  to  no 
other  being,  but  to  "  his  Father  and  our  Father,  his 
God  and  our  God." 

Unitarians  are  unable  indeed  to  express  these 
sentiments  in  the  language  applied  by  Dr.  Woods, 
p.  145.  Such  expressions*  of  confidence  and  trust 
they  can  apply  to  God  only.  They  have  but  one 
object  of  supreme  trust  and  dependence.  Were 
they  to  make  Jesus  Christ  that  object,  they  would 
fear  to  incur  the  rebuke,  which  the  prophet  received 
from  the  angel  before  whom  he  fell  down  to  worship, 
^See  thou  do  it  not,  I  am  thy  fellow- servant,  wor- 
ship God."  I  am  ready  therefore  to  answer  to  the 
questions,  with  which  Dr.  Woods  closes  the  para- 
graph which  relates  to  faith  in  Christ,  (p.  155) 
"  Does  the  Unitarian  system  teach  any  thing  like 
this  ?  Does  such  a  faith  spring  from  the  principles 
which  it  inculcates  ?"  to  say  no  !  Most  of  what  is 
there  said,  Unitarians  would  apply  to  God,  but  not 
to  Christ.  We  find  nothing  in  the  Bible  to  justify 
us  in  transferring  our  supreme  confidence  and  trust 
from  God  to  Christ.  It  is  accordingly  the  power 
and  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God,  which  inspire 
us  with  humble  and  joyful  hope  ;    and  which  put 


129 

our  hearts  at  rest  respecting  the  important"  con- 
cerns of  the  creation.  It  is  to  his  care,  that  we 
cheerfully  and  entirely  commit  our  interests,  tem- 
poral and  eternal.  It  is  in  him  that  we  trust  for  all 
that  is  necessary  to  purify  our  hearts,  to  guide  and 
protect  us  during  our  pilgrimage,  to  comfort  us  in 
aflliction,  and  to  give  us  peace  and  triumph  in  the 
prospect  of  death.  In  these  great  interests  and 
concerns,  we  cannot  consent,  and  we  do  not  find 
ourselves  taught,  to  leave  our  heavenly  Father 
wholly  out  of  the  account. 

The  tendency  of  any  scheme  of  doctrine  to  pro- 
duce the  dread  of  sin,  and  a  watchful  care  to  obey 
the  divine  precepts,  will  depend  essentially  on  the 
view  it  presents  of  the  rewards  and  punishments 
prepared  for  men  in  another  life,  the  heaven  it  pro- 
vides, and  the  hell  it  reveals.  Now  it  is  not  a  little 
remarkable,  that  Dr.  Woods  should  claim  an  advan- 
tage, in  point  of  moral  influence  to  the  orthodox 
faith,  on  the  ground  that  a  it  contemplates  a  state 
of  higher  perfection  and  purer  and  more  elevated 
enjoyment,  than  the  Unitarian  describes."  (p.  146) 
And  "  that  the  contemplation  of  a  future  reward,  to 
be  obtained  by  virtuous  efforts,  must  evidently  tend 
to  excite  those  efforts,  very  much  in  proportion  to 
the  greatness  *and  excellency  of  that  reward." 

For,  besides  that  the  claim  of  higher  perfection 
and  greater  purity  is  without  any  foundation  to 
justify  it ;  upon  what  ground  can  he  speak  of  a 
future  reward  to  be  obtained  "  by  virtuous  efforts?" 
The  reader  has  not  forgotten,  that  the  sinner  has 
no   encouragement  to   virtuous  efforts :  "  That  no 


130 

works  of  righteousness,  and  no  accomplishments  or 
disposition  must  ever  be  named  in  the  presence  of 
God.. ..that  the  only  righteousness,  which  is  to  be 
the  foundation  of  hope  to  men,  is  a  perfect  right- 
eousness which  God  has  provided. ...that  we  must 
rely  on  the  atoning  blood  of  Christ  as  the  sole 
ground  of  forgiveness." 

Unitarians  may  be  allowed  to  speak  of  the  mo- 
tives to  virtuous  efforts  arising  from  the  future 
rewards  to  be  obtained  by  them ;  but  with  what 
propriety  can  the  Calvinist  do  this,  who  believes, 
that  the  future  condition  of  men  is  determined  from 
eternity  by  an  irreversible  decree  ;  that  by  nature 
they  are  totally  depraved  and  inclined  only  to  evil ; 
that  they  remain  so  till  brought  out  of  that  state  by 
regeneration,  and  that  regeneration  is  effected  only 
by  the  special  irresistible  influence  of  the  spirit  of 
God,  granted  only  to  the  elect,  and  to  them,  not  on 
account  of  any  disposition  or  efforts  of  theirs,  which 
have  any  tendency  to  produce  or  to  procure  it  ? 

And  as  to  the  influence  of  the  different  views  of 
future  punishment ; — it  might  at  first  be  thought, 
that  the  advantage  were  on  the  side  of  those  of 
Calvinism  ;  but  there  are  two  considerations  that 
convince  me  to  the  contrary.  For,  in  the  first 
place,  the  punishments,  as  well  as  the  rewards 
provided  by  that  scheme,  are  administered  on  the 
principles  of  a  sovereign,  unconditional  election  ; 
the  desert  of  punishment,  and  consequently  the 
punishment  itself,  not  being  subject  to  any  human 
efforts,  but  following  necessarily  the  divine  decree. 
Bad  men  may  be  expected   to  avail  themselves  of 


131 

the  plea  of  a  moral  inability,  which,  to  all  practical 
purposes,  is  in  fact  the  same  as  a  natural  inability, 
or  physical  coercion.  They  may  be  expected  to  go 
on  quietly  in  the  course  of  vice  in  the  persuasion, 
that  if  they  are  not  predestinated  to  holiness  and 
eternal  life,  no  efforts  of  theirs  can  avail  them  ;  and 
if  they  are,  God  will,  in  his  own  time,  draw  them  to 
him  by  his  effectual,  irresistible  grace  ;  that  nothing, 
which  they  can  do,  till  thus  regenerated,  will  have 
any  tendency  to  bring  about  this  effect,  or  prepare 
them  for  it ;  on  the  contrary,  that  they  are  as 
likely,  I  believe  they  are  sometimes  told  more  likely? 
to  be  thus  arrested  by  sovereign  grace  in  the  full 
career  of  wickedness,  than  when  using  endeavours 
to  recover  themselves  out  of  the  hands  of  Satan  by 
their  own  strength.  This  reasoning,  and  I  cannot 
see  that  it  does  not  proceed  fairly  on  the  acknowl- 
edged principles  of  Calvinism,  must  check,  instead 
of  encouraging  the  efforts  of  wicked  men  to  disen- 
tangle themselves  from  the  snare  of  the  devil. 

In  the  second  place,  we  are  to  look  for  the 
efficacy  of  punishment  and  its  moral  influence  in 
preventing  sin,  or  reclaiming  men  from  it,  not  to  the 
degree  of  its  severity  and  duration  only,  but  to  its 
certainty,  and  the  evidence  brought  home  distinctly 
to  the  minds  of  men  of  its  certainty-  Now,  if  you 
endeavour  to  enhance  the  fear  of  punishment,  by 
representations  of  its  severity,  or  of  its  duration  far 
disproportioned  to  what  can  be  the  apprehension 
of  the  demerit,  to  which  it  is  to  be  applied  ;  if  you 
carry  it  beyond  the  bounds  of  probability,  that  the 
threat  will  be  executed;    if  it   be.  such,  that  to  a 


132 

reflecting  mind  it  is  impossible  it  should  be  executed 
by  a  just,  and  good,  and  merciful  being,  the  Parent 
of  the  creation  ;  you  weaken  its  effects  as  a  motive, 
you  lose  in  probability,  and  the  firmness  of  faith, 
more  than  you  gain  in  the  force  of  fear.  You  excite 
a  vague  and  indistinct  terror  and  dread  ;  but  so 
mingled  with  incredulity,  arising  from  a  natural  and 
unconquerable  sense  of  the  essential  kindness  and 
benignity  of  the  Author  of  nature,  as  to  impair,  if 
not  destroy  its  practical  effects. 

The  surest  and  highest,  the  purest  and  most 
permanent  influence  will  be  that,  which  arises  from 
such  views  of  the  future  punishment  awaiting  the 
wicked,  as  are  consistent  with  the  character  of  a 
Sovereign  of  the  world,  who  has  nothing  vindictive 
in  his  nature,  who  adjusts  punishment  to  the  degree 
of  demerit,  who  inflicts  it  solely  for  the  purpose  of 
promoting  holiness,  and  accomplishing  the  purposes 
of  his  moral  government,  and  only  to  the  degree 
which  these  purposes  require,  and  so  long  as  they 
require  it. 

From  these  considerations,  I  am  persuaded  that 
the  moral  influence  of  the  views  of  future  reward 
and  punishment,  maintained  generally  by  Unitarians, 
is  far  more  certain,  and  powerful,  and  salutary,  and 
purifying,  than  that  which  is  the  result  of  the 
orthodox  views  on  this  subject.  And  I  am  persuaded 
of  this  by  another  consideration  still.  It  is  this  : — 
the  virtue  that  is  produced  by  cheerful  views,  and 
by  the  contemplation  of  kindness,  benevolence,  and 
mercy  in  God,  is  of  a  more  pure,  generous,  and 
elevated  kind,   than  that  which  arises  from  cold.. 


133 

austere,  and  gloomy  views,  and  the  contemplation 
of  severe,  unrelenting,  vindictive  justice,  find  the 
execution  of  eternal  wrath. 

Unitarians  believe  that  the  representations  in 
scripture  of  the  future  punishment  of  the  impeni- 
tent wicked  are,  for  the  purpose  of  impression, 
highly  figurative  ;  but  they  believe  that  the  figures, 
like  all  others  used  by  the  sacred  writers,  are  in- 
tended to  mean  something,  something  of  vast  mo- 
ment ;  that  in  degree  and  duration  it  will  be  such, 
as  is  calculated  to  produce  the  highest  practical 
influence.  In  either  respect  we  can  have  clear  and 
distinct  conceptions  only  to  a  certain  degree.  All 
beyond  that,  therefore,  can  add  nothing  to  the 
effect. 

Dr.  Woods   proceeds   to   a   comparison  of  the 
different  influences  of  the    systems  in  question,  as 
respects  reverence  for  the  word  of  God.     To  show 
that  Unitarians  have  little  reverence  for  the  scrip- 
tures,  and  treat   the   sacred    writings   with  little 
respect,  he    asserts  (p.  148,)    that,   "  the   grand 
maxim   of  the    Polish  Socinians  was,  that  reason  is 
our  ultimate  rule  and  standard,  and  that  whatever 
in  religion  is  not  conformed  to  this,  is  to  be  rejected. 
This  maxim,  as  they  understood  it,  gave  them  per- 
fect liberty  to  alter  or  set  aside   the   obvious  sense 
of  the   bible,  whenever   it  did   not  agree  with  the 
deductions  of  reason.    Unitarians,  in  general,  have, 
with   more    or   less    decision,    adopted    the    same 
maxim."      The   impression    intended    here  to    be 
made   on   the   reader  must  be,  that  "  Unitarians, 
generally,   think   themselves   at   perfect  liberty  to 
17 


134 

alter  or  set  aside  the  obvious  sense  of  the  bible,  when- 
ever it  does  not  agree  with  the  deductions  of  rea- 
son. "  Dr.  Woods  has  not  seen  fit  to  refer  us  to  his 
authority  for  the  assertion,  as  respects  the  Polish 
Socinians.  This  it  was  his  duty  to  do,  in  laying 
against  them  a  charge  of  so  serious  a  nature,  that 
the  reader  might  be  able  to  judge  of  its  justice. 
What  authority  he  may  be  able  to  produce,  I  know 
not.  But  I  presume  it  must  have  been  derived 
from  a  passage,  which  I  shall  subjoin,  which  is 
found  in  the  Racovian  Catechism,  which  contains  a 
summary  of  the  Socinian  doctrines,  as  drawn  up  by 
the  celebrated  Polish  Divines.  But  if  this  passage 
be  the  only  authority  to  which  he  will  appeal,  the 
charge  is  made  with  less  care,  than  were  to  have 
been  expected  of  one,  so  frequent  and  loud,  as  he  is, 
in  his  complaints  of  the  misrepresentations  and 
unfairness  of  adversaries.     The  passage  is  this — 

6i  By  what  means  may  the  more  obscure  passa- 
ges of  scripture  be  understood  ? 

u  By  carefully  ascertaining  in  the  first  instance 
the  scope,  and  other  circumstances,  of  those  passa- 
ges, in  the  way  which  ought  to  be  pursued  in  the 
interpretation  of  the  language  of  all  other  written 
compositions.  Secondly,  by  an  attentive  comparison 
of  them  with  similar  phrases  and  sentences  of  less 
ambiguous  meaning.  Thirdly,  by  submitting  our 
interpretation  of  the  more  obscure  passages  to  the 
test  of  doctrines,  which  are  most  clearly  inculcated 
in  the  scriptures,  as  to  certain  first  principles  ;  and 
admitting  nothing  that  disagrees  with  these.  And, 
lastly,  by  rejecting  every  interpretation,  which   is 


135 

repugnant  to  right  reason,  or  involves  a  contradic- 
tion." 

The  reader  is  now  requested  to  compare  this 
with  the  assertion  of  Dr.  Woods,  and  to  judge  of 
the  fairness  of  the  representation.  The  principles 
of  interpretation,  as  here  stated,  are  such,  as  no 
Divine  of  any  school  will  at  the  present  day  call  in 
question.  They  are  such  as  Dr.  Woods  himself, 
I  will  venture  to  affirm,  continually  applies  in 
practice.  The  difference  between  him  and  the 
Polish  Divines  is  only  as  to  the  cases,  to  which  the 
principle  is  to  be  applied,  and  not  as  to  the  princi- 
ple itself.  A  thousand  instances  may  be  brought, 
in  which  Dr.  Woods  will  apply  the  principle  with- 
out hesitation.  No  one  will  reject  with  more 
decision  than  Dr.  Woods  the  obvious  meaning  of  all 
those  passages,  numerous  and  frequent  as  they  are, 
in  which  bodily  organs  and  human  passions  are 
ascribed  to  God.  He  will  exercise  his  reason  in 
the  interpretation  of  all  those  passages,  which  will 
teach  him  to  set  aside,  as  inadmissible,  the  plain, 
obvious,  and  literal  meaning  of  the  words  that  are 
used. 

Luke  xiv.  26.  Our  Saviour  says,  "  If  any  man 
hate  not  his  father,  and  mother,  and  wife,  and 
children,  and  brethren,  and  sisters,  yea,  and  his 
own  life  also,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple. "  Dr. 
Woods,  I  trust,  will  be  slow  to  insist  on  the  plain 
and  obvious  sense  of  this  text,  as  the  true  meaning 
of  it.  He  will  doubtless  make  reason  his  guide,  in 
its  interpretation  ;  and  applying  his  knowledge  of 
oriental  idioms,  will  set  aside,  as  utterly  inadmissi- 


136 

Lie,  the  literal  and  obvious  meaning  of  the  words  ; 
not  suspecting  that  he  is  thus  exposing  himself  to 
the  harsh  censure  from  some  less  enlightened  and 
liberal  interpreter  of  scripture,  of  taking  the  liberty 
to  alter  or  "  set  aside  the  obvious  sense  of  the 
Bible." 

Matt.  xxvi.  26,  28.  Our  Saviour  says,  "  This  is 
my  body, — this  is  my  blood  ;w  and  John  vi.  53. 
t(  Verily,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  except  ye  eat  the 
flesh  of  the  son  of  man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye 
have  no  life  in  you."  Dr.  Woods,  I  suppose,  will 
be  as  much  shocked  as  any  Polish  Divine  of  the 
whole  Socinian  school,  or  any  English  or  German 
Unitarian,  at  the  idea  of  adopting  the  obvious  sense 
of  these  expressions,  as  the  real  meaning  of  him 
who  uttered  them.  Nor  will  he  much  regard  the 
honest  Catholic,  who,  pressing  him  with  the  literal 
meaning  of  the  words,  charges  him  with  perverting 
the  scriptures,  and  destroying  their  authority  by 
thus  subjecting  them  to  reason  in  their  interpreta- 
tion. But  why  thus  shocked,  and  why  not  adhere 
to  the  literal  sense  with  the  Catholic,  unless  the 
principle  be  admitted,  that  reason  is  to  be  employed 
in  the  interpretation  of  scripture  ?  Unless  calling 
to  its  aid  all  the  resources  of  learning,  experience, 
and  common  sense,  it  may  authorize  us  to  set  aside 
the  obvious  sense  by  supplying  us  with  proof,  that, 
in  any  given  case,  the  obvious  sense  cannot  be  the 
true  sense  ?  This  is  quite  a  different  thing  from 
such  an  arbitrary  alteration  of  the  word  of  God, 
or  setting  aside  its  true  meaning,  as  is  implied  in 
what  Dr.  Woods  has  laid  to  the  charge  of  the  Polish 
Socinians  and  modern  Unitarians. 


137 

But  who,  let  me  ask,  is  the  man  that  manifests 
the  truest  reverence  for  the  word  of  God  ?  Is  it  he, 
who  indolently  and  carelessly  takes  the  meaning 
that  first  presents  itself,  however  absurd,  or  con- 
tradictory, or  even  impossible  that  may  be  ;  or  he, 
who,  when  the  meaning  that  first  presents  itself  is 
attended  with  difficulty  or  doubt,  sets  himself  with 
patient  and  laborious  study  to  ascertain,  whether  it 
be  the  meaning  intended  by  the  writer  ;  a  meaning, 
which,  if  it  be  the  word  of  God,  will  certainly  con- 
tain neither  an  impossibility,  a  contradiction,  nor 
an  absurdity  ?  Is  it  he,  who,  without  suffering  his 
reason  to  judge  in  the  case,  accepts  the  meaning, 
which  has  been  assigned  to  it  in  an  age  of  ignorance 
and  superstition,  and  which  ecclesiastical  authority 
has  sanctioned,  enforced,  and  perpetuated ;  or  he, 
who,  using  his  own  reason,  instead  -of  trusting  that 
of  another,  applies  all  the  helps  that  time,  and 
industry,  and  learning,  have  furnished,  to  the  dis- 
covery of  its  true  meaning? 

We  not  only  avow  the  principle,  that  reason  is 
to  be  our  guide  in  the  interpretation  of  scripture, 
but  we  declare  that  we  know  not  a  higher  act  of 
disrespect  and  irreverence  to  the  word  of  God,  than 
he  is  guilty  of,  who,  rejecting  the  free  use  of  rea- 
son in  its  interpretation,  exposes  it  to  contempt  by 
attributing  to  it  communications,  which  could  not 
have  been  made  by  the  same  God,  who  is  the  Au- 
thor of  our  reason.  We  profess  none  of  that  loyalty 
of  faith,  which  consists  in  implicit  subjection  to  the 
creed  of  a  master,  which  is  expressed  by  degrading 
and  undervaluing  our  reason,  or  refusing  its   use, 


138 

and  thus  becoming  prepared  to  receive  absurdities, 
contradictions,  and  impossibilities  for  divine  instruc- 
tions. We  think  it  to  be  doing  no  honour  to  our 
sacred  books  to  be  ready  to  believe  both  sides  of  a 
direct  contradiction,  because  we  think  that  we  find 
them  there.  We  are  satisfied,  from  the  very  cir- 
cumstance that  it  is  a  contradiction,  or  an  absurdity, 
that  we  must  have  misunderstood  what  we  there 
read.  We  suspend  our  faith,  and  apply  ourselves 
with  all  the  aids  that  reason,  learning,  industry 
supply  to  ascertain  the  source  of  our  error,  and  to 
discover  the  truth.  We  believe  that  Unitarians,  by 
doing  this,  have  done  much  toward  relieving  our  re- 
ligion from  articles  of  faith,  and  the  scriptures  from 
opinions  attributed  to  them,  which  they  never  taught, 
which  have  been  a  reproach  to  our  religion,  and  the 
occasion  of  its  being  rejected  by  many  ;  who  would 
gladly  have  received  all  that  it  has  taught,  had  it 
been  presented  to  them  unmixed  with  the  absurdi- 
ties and  impossibilities,  with  which  they  have  seen 
it  associated  in  popular  creeds. 

In  order  to  estimate  the  relative  tendency  of  the 
two  systems,  as  respects  benevolent  action,  whether 
m  relation  to  the  common  interests  of  life,  or  that 
highest  kind  of  it,  which  is  directed  to  the  spread  of 
the  Gospel,  and  the  salvation  of  men,  we  have  only 
to  compare  together  the  views  which  have  been 
given  of  the  leading  doctrines  of  the  two  systems  ; 
particularly  as  they  relate  to  the  character  and 
dispositions  of  the  Author  of  nature,  his  moral 
government,  and  the  moral  nature  of  man,  and  his 
condition,   as  a  state  of  trial  and  probation  for   an 


139 

endless  being. — To  this  comparison  I  confidently 
invite  you,  in  the  assurance  that  no  further  illus- 
tration is  necessary  ;  and  that  you  cannot  fail  to  be 
convinced,  that  no  opinions  on  these  subjects  can 
be  better  calculated,  than  those  which  we  maintain, 
to  purify  and  exalt  our  best  affections,  and  to 
strengthen  the  motive  to  every  kind  of  benevolent 
exertion. 

I  am  persuaded  too,  that  upon  a  fair  comparison 
Unitarians  will  not  be  found  in  fact  to  be  behind 
other  Christians  in  their  benevolent  exertions. 
Neither  in  Europe  nor  America  are  they  liable  to 
any  peculiar  reproach  for  the  want  of  activity  and 
engagedness  in  promoting  humane  and  benevolent 
designs.  In  accomplishing  all  the  great  purposes 
of  christian  charity,  as  relates  both  to  this  and 
another  life,  it  is  believed  they  have  taken  their  full 
share  of  interest,  and  have  contributed  their  full 
share  of  exertion  with  their  persons  and  their 
property. 

In  proportion  to  their  numbers,  no  denomination 
of  Christians  has  furnished  more  distinguished  ex- 
amples of  ardent  and  disinterested  zeal,  personal 
sacrifices,  and  active  exertion  in  the  cause  of  truth, 
for  the  advancement  of  pure  religion,  and  to  pro- 
mote humane  and  benevolent  objects.  None  have 
contributed  more  largely  to  some  of  the  most  valua- 
ble institutions,  by  which  the  present  period  is  dis- 
tinguished. They  have  taken  an  active  and  leading 
part  in  promoting  the  great  ends  of  the  Bible 
Society,  and  the  Peace  Society.  In  each  of  these 
they  have  united  together  with  Christians  of  all 


140 

other  denominations.  Their  exertions  and  their 
contributions  to  the  purposes  of  christian  charity 
have  been  less  the  subject  of  public  notice,  than 
equal  and  similar  exertions  of  others,  for  reasons 
which  are  obvious.  They  have  not  been  exclusive. 
They  have  not  been  made  separately.  They  have 
usually  been  thrown  into  a  common  stock.  They 
have  had  no  desire  to  be  distinguished  from  other 
Christians, — have  been  willing  to  act  with  them, 
and  wherever  the  object  proposed,  and  the  means 
for  attaining  it  were  such,  as  they  could  approve, 
to  unite  with  others  in  promoting  it.  They  have 
done  what  every  one,  who  regards  the  great  inter- 
ests of  religion  more  than  personal  reputation,  or 
the  advancement  of  a  party,  ought  to  do.  They 
have  exercised  their  judgment  in  selecting  the 
objects  to  which  they  should  lend  their  aid ;  not 
always  choosing  those,  which  would  excite  the 
admiration  of  the  world,  or  contribute  most  to 
give  consideration  or  power  to  a  sect,  or  serve 
to  distinguish  them  from  others.  They  have 
accordingly  been  less  engaged  than  some  other 
denominations  of  Christians,  in  projecting  and  sup- 
porting foreign  missions,  which,  though  the  most 
splendid  and  imposing,  they  have  thought  to  be  one 
of  the  least  useful  of  the  achievements  of  christian 
charity.  For  this  apparent  backwardness  and 
lukewarmness,  with  which  they  are  sometimes 
reproached,  reasons  may  be  assigned,  which  are  not 
inconsistent  with  their  taking  as  deep  an  interest 
in  the  cause  of  Christianity,  and  the  salvation  of 
their  fellow-men,   as  others ;  and   being  ready  to 


141 

contribute  as  much,  and  as  cheerfully  to  extend  the 
knowledge,  the  influences,  and  the  blessings  of  our 
holy  faith  to  all  lands  and  to  every  people. 

The  imaginary  cases,  which  Dr.  Woods  has 
allowed  himself  to  state,  (pp.  154,  155)  are  wholly 
gratuitous.  He  would  have  spared  himself  and  the 
reader,  had  he  reflected  for  a  moment,  that  a  Uni- 
tarian might  invert  the  picture  he  has  drawn,  and  it 
would  be  entitled  to  the  same  consideration  as  that, 
which  he  has  presented  ;  that  is,  to  none  at  all. 
Were  it  even  in  his  power,  instead  of  a  mere  suppo- 
sition, to  produce  an  example,  he  must  perceive, 
that  it  would  prove  nothing  to  the  purpose,  for 
which  it  was  alleged  ;  since  that  would  not  be  in- 
consistent with  an  opposite  example  at  the  same 
time.  Were  it  a  fact,  instead  of  a  mere  imagination, 
that  an  individual  Unitarian  by  becoming  orthodox 
had  become  more  zealous  and  engaged,  both  in  per- 
sonal religion  and  in  benevolent  exertions ;  and 
that  an  individual  Calvinist,  on  the  other  hand,  had 
lost  much  of  his  piety  and  zeal  in  becoming  a  Unita- 
rian ;  it  would  not  prove  that  others  might  not 
experience  an  equally  salutary  change  of  character 
in  passing  from  the  orthodox  to  the  unitarian  faith, 
— or  one  equally  unfavourable  by  passing  from  the 
unitarian  to  the  orthodox.  I  may  have  as  good 
reason  for  believing  that  the  one  event  would  take 
place,  as  Dr.  Woods  has  for  the  probability  of 
the  other.  And  our  opinions  are  each  alike  of  no 
value. 

I  have  observed  that  satisfactory  reasons  could 

be  assigned,  why  Unitarians  are  not  seen,  as  distin- 
18 


142 

guished  from  others  in  those  u  remarkable  move- 
ments," which  in  Dr.  Woods'  opinion  "  present  the 
only  prospect  we  have  of  the  salvation  of  the  world." 
(p.  153.)  Some  have  had  the  opinion,  in  common 
with  intelligent  and  pious  Christians  of  other  de- 
nominations, that  little  hope  was  to  be  entertained, 
of  any  important  benefit  from  missionary  exertions 
in  heathen  countries.  So  little  success  has  attended 
all  endeavours  in  modern  times  to  extend  the  bounds 
of  Christendom  by  missions  for  the  conversion  of 
barbarous  pagan  nations,  that  some  have  been 
ready  to  think,  that  no  hope  was  to  be  entertained 
from  human  exertion,  until  it  should  be  accompa- 
nied, as  it  was  in  the  apostolic  age,  with  some  visible 
supernatural  aid ;  until  those,  who  are  sent  forth  to 
carry  the  Gospel  to  the  heathen,  should  have  the 
power  given  them  to  propose  its  doctrines  with 
the  same  authority,  and  accompanied  with  the  same 
miraculous  evidence,  as  it  was  when  presented  by 
its  primitive  teachers.  Nor  has  this  opinion  been 
confined  to  Unitarians. 

Others  again,  who  have  had  more  confidence  in 
the  efficacy  of  human  exertions,  and  who  believe 
that  Christianity  will  finally  triumph  universally 
through  the  instrumentality  of  ordinary  means ; 
have  yet  not  been  satisfied  with  the  means  they 
have  seen  employed.  They  have  believed  that 
direct  endeavours  for  the  conversion  of  the  heathen 
to  Christianity  have  been  premature;  and  have 
been  wasted  by  being  ill-timed  and  misapplied. 
They  have  thought  that  no  permanent  or  extensive 
good  was  to  be  expected,  except  where  the  arts  and 


143 

some  of  the  habits  of  civilized  life,  and  some  of  the 
human  literature  of  Christendom  have  been  first 
carried,  to  prepare  the  way  for  its  reception.  They 
have  thought  that  those,  to  whom  the  Gospel  is  sent, 
must  be  prepared  to  understand  it  and  to  feel  its 
value  by  some  previous  education ;  and  some  have 
been  disgusted,  no  doubt  unjustly,  by  thinking  that 
they  saw,  in  the  remarkable  movements  alluded  to 
above,  too  much  of  ostentation  and  worldly  motive  ; 
too  much  that  seemed  like  a  call  upon  an  admiring 
world,  "  Come  and  see  my  zeal  for  the  Lord." 

By  some  it  has  been  thought,  that  to  bring  men 
from  the  grossness  and  absurdities  of  paganism  to 
pure  Christianity,  the  progress  must  be  gradual. 
The  transition  is  too  great,  and  would  give  too 
violent  a  shock,  to  take  place  at  once.  They  must 
pass  to  it  through  several  intermediate  steps.  Light 
must  be  thrown  in  gradually,  as  they  are  able  to 
bear  it.  Christianity  is  more  likely  to  be  received, 
if  it  be  first  introduced  in  forms  mingled  with  con- 
siderable degrees  of  superstition  ;  with  pomp,  and 
form,  and  ceremony,  and  even  with  corruptions  of 
doctrine,  which  bring  it  nearer  to  the  faith  to  which 
they  have  been  accustomed.  Polytheists,  for  exam- 
ple, it  has  been  supposed,  may  be  more  easily 
reconciled  to  Christianity,  and  more  ready  to  em- 
brace it  in  that  form,  which  leaves  them  a  threefold 
God,  or  three  Gods,  (for  they  will  be  able  to  under- 
stand none  of  those  nice  distinctions,  which  exercise 
the  wits  of  learned  theologians  and  acute  meta- 
physical divines  on  this  subject,)  than  that,  which 
reduces  the  object  of  human  worship  to  a  perfect 
unity. 


144 

With  such  views  and  such  impressions,  they 
have  seen  their  duty?  so  far  as  respects  exertions  in 
the  Christian  cause?  lying  in  a  different  course  ;  not 
in  sending  Unitarian  missionaries  into  barbarous 
nations,  but  in  studies,  and  labours  at  home  to 
purify  the  Christian  doctrine,  and  restore  it  to  its 
primitive  state.  They  have  believed,  if  the  Unita- 
rian doctrine  is  to  be  sent  any  where  abroad,  it  is 
to  the  Jews,  and  the  followers  of  Mahomet,  among 
whom  all  attempts  to  introduce  Christianity  have 
been  defeated  by  the  corruptions,  with  which  it 
has  been  accompanied  ;  and  where  better  success 
may  be  reasonably  expected,  when  it  shall  appear 
stripped  of  those  appendages,  which  constitute  their 
objection  to  it. 

Other  reasons  also  are  to  be  assigned  for  that 
appearance  of  apathy,  want  of  interest  and  want  of 
exertion,  with  which  Unitarians  are  sometimes 
charged.  As  has  been  said  before,  they  have  never 
been  forward  to  distinguish  themselves  as  a  sect 
from  the  rest  of  their  fellow  Christians.  They  have 
never  united  their  exertions  together  for  the  pur- 
pose of  establishing  a  separate  interest.  They 
have  felt  no  separate  interest.  They  have  been 
willing  to  remain,  as  long  as  they  were  allowed  to 
remain,  mingled  together  with  their  fellow  Chris- 
tians, undistinguished  from  the  general  mass, 
throwing  in  their  contributions  both  of  money  and 
of  personal  exertion  with  theirs.  They  have  thus 
contributed  to  swell  the  amount  of  charities  and 
exertions,  for  which  they  have  had  no  share  of 
the  credit. 


145 

To  this  course  of  conduct  they  have  been 
induced  in  part  by  the  love  of  peace,  a  desire  to 
escape  odium,  and  to  avoid  disturbing  the  public 
tranquillity  and  order.  But  neither  the  purity  of 
their  motives,  nor  the  peaceful  and  silent  course 
they  have  pursued,  was  sufficient  to  shield  them 
from  reproach.  This  very  quiet  and  silence  were 
brought  against  them,  as  an  evidence  of  lukewarm- 
ness,  and  heartlessness,  and  indifference  to  the 
cause  of  religion ;  and  their  alleged  inactivity 
was  attributed  to  an  opinion,  that  Christianity 
was  of  little  value,  and  that  men  might  do  well 
without  it. 

They  have  accordingly  found,  that  the  reasons 
for  their  former  course  no  longer  continued ;  and 
they  have  changed  that  course.  They  have  been 
convinced,  that  the  state  of  things  called  upon  them 
to  use  those  exertions  in  the  maintenance,  defence, 
explanation  and  propagation  of  their  opinions,  from 
which  only  a  regard  for  peace  had  hitherto  res- 
trained them  ;  since  the  same  peaceful  and  silent 
course  could  no  longer  shield  them  from  reproach, 
nor  prevent  the  mischiefs  that  they  wished  to  avert. 
And  now  what  is  the  consequence  of  this  change  of 
measures  ?  They  are  reproached  with  that  very 
activity  and  zeal,  with  those  very  exertions,  which 
but  a  short  time  since,  it  was  their  reproach  not  to 
make. 

These  exertions  are  accompanied  with  the  hap- 
piest effects.  They  have  awakened  a  spirit  of 
inquiry,  which  will  go  on  and  increase.  They 
appear  not  yet,  and  it  may  be  long  before  it  will 


146 

be  proper  that  they  should  appear,  in  some  of  those 
particular  things,  in  which  they  are  reproached 
with  being  deficient.  They  have  much  to  do  at 
home,  before  it  will  be  in  their  power  advanta- 
geously to  the  Christian  cause  to  extend  their  ex- 
ertions abroad.  They  have  to  awaken  a  livelier 
interest  in  the  cause  of  Christianity  and  the  pro- 
gress of  rational  and  just  views  of  its  doctrines  in 
their  own  body  ;  to  excite  a  deeper  tone  of  religious 
feeling  in  that  part  of  the  Christian  community,  to 
which  they  have  access,  whether  from  the  press  or 
the  pulpit ;  to  engage  the  wealthy  to  cooperate  with 
them,  by  bringing  home  to  their  feelings,  the  great 
good  they  have  it  in  their  power  to  do,  and  to  their 
consciences  the  solemn  responsibility  connected 
with  every  talent,  and  every  opportunity  and  pow- 
er of  doing  good.  They  have  to  excite  literary 
men  to  give  more  of  their  studies  and  labours,  and 
more  of  their  zeal  to  the  promotion  of  so  great  and 
desirable  a  purpose.  They  have  to  induce  enlighten- 
ed and  liberal  men,  who  by  their  professions  or  public 
stations  have  an  opportunity  of  exciting  a  salutary 
influence  in  the  community,  to  a  more  open  and 
manly  avowal  of  their  opinions,  and  to  unite  with 
them  in  all  fair,  and  moderate,  and  temperate 
measures,  with  the  Christian  spirit,  yet  with  ardour 
and  lively  interest,  to  promote  and  extend  them. 
It  is  not  doubted  that  throughout  our  country, 
a  very  large  proportion  of  those  men,  who  for  their 
talents,  and  learning,  and  virtues  have  the  most 
influence  in  the  community,  and  have  it  in  their 
power  to  do  the  most  toward  giving  a  right  direction 


147 

to  the  public  feeling  or  public  sentiment,  are  dis- 
satisfied with  the  Calvinistic  and  Trinitarian  form, 
in  which  they  have  had  religion  presented  to  them ; 
and  if  they  have  been  led  by  circumstances  to  free 
inquiry  on  the  subject,  are  Unitarians.  But  vari- 
ous causes  prevent  them  from  making  a  public  avow- 
al of  their  opinions.  Among  these,  not  the  least 
is,  usually,  an  unwillingness  to  encounter  opposition 
and  obloquy,  and  the  loss  of  confidence,  and  of  the 
power  of  being  useful.  It  is  among  the  encourag- 
ing prospects  of  the  present  time,  that  the  reasons 
for  reserve  are  ceasing  to  operate  with  all  the  force 
they  have  done  in  times  past,  and  that  the  reluc- 
tance to  an  undisguised  avowal  of  Unitarian  senti- 
ments is  in  a  great  degree  overcome. 

It  is  asked,  by  what  motives  Unitarians  are 
influenced  in  their  endeavours  to  disseminate  their 
peculiar  opinions.  The  answer  is  easy,  and  I  think 
such  as  to  justify  at  least  all  the  zeal  and  earnest- 
ness they  have  yet  discovered  in  the  defence  or  the 
publication  of  their  views  of  Christianity.  They 
are  earnest  and  active  then,  because  they  have  a 
firm  faith  in  the  truth  and  the  importance  of  their 
opinions,  and  that  it  is  their  duty  to  bear  their  tes- 
timony to  the  truth,  and  to  leave  no  proper  means 
untried,  to  cause  it  to  be  attended  to,  and  under- 
stood, and  respected.  And  they  are  fully  persuad- 
ed, that  the  course  they  are  pursuing  in  this  respect 
is  in  fact  attended  with  very  salutary  effects.  One. 
to  which  they  attach  no  small  importance,  is  the 
well  known  fact,  that,  wherever  the  unitarian  doc- 
trine prevails,  and  the  rational  views  with  which  it 


148 

is  accompanied,  a  very  important  portion  of  society, 
the  most  elevated,  intelligent,  and  enlightened  be- 
come serious  and  practical  Christians,  who,  in 
catholic  countries,  or  where  Calvinism  prevails,  are 
oftener  unbelievers  and  sceptics,  and  treat  Chris- 
tianity with  neglect  at  least,  if  not  with  disrespect. 
The  reason  of  this  is  obvious.  Men  of  cultivat- 
ed minds  and  enlarged  views  are  often  so  engaged 
in  the  business,  and  engrossed  by  the  interests  and 
cares  of  the  world,  as  to  depend  for  their  views  of 
Christianity  wholly  on  what  they  hear  from  the 
pulpit,  and  what  they  find  in  the  popular  creeds 
and  catechisms,  which,  they  take  for  granted,  ex- 
hibit fairly  to  them  the  Christian  doctrine.  Find- 
ing the  system,  as  it  is  thus  presented  to  them,  such 
as  their  understanding  and  moral  feelings  will  not 
admit  of  their  receiving,  they  reject  Christianity 
without  further  examination  ;  not  thinking  them- 
selves bound  to  inquire  into  the  evidence  of  a  system 
of  faith,  which  carries  in  itself,  in  their  view, 
intrinsic  marks  of  incredibility.  When  to  persons 
of  this  character  and  in  such  circumstances  unitarian 
views  of  the  christian  doctrine  are  afterward  pre- 
sented, their  attention  is  arrested  by  their  reasona- 
bleness, and  their  consistency  with  what  the  light  of 
nature  teaches  of  the  character  and  government  of 
God.  They  are  induced  to  examine  the  claims  of  a 
religion  to  their  faith,  which  is  presented  to  them  in  a 
form,  so  agreeable  to  the  reason  God  has  given  them, 
and  to  the  natural  notions  that  arise  from  what  they 
see  of  his  character  and  dispositions  in  the  government 
of  the  world  ;  and  the  effect  of  examination  is  a  firm 


149 

conviction,  that  the  new  views,  in  which  Christianity 
has  been  presented  to  them,  are  the  result  of  a  fair 
and  just  interpretation  of  the  scriptures  in  which  it 
is  contained  ;  and  that  the  religion  itself  is  as  well 
supported  by  evidence,  as  it  is  worthy  of  the  faith, 
and  approbation,  and  affection  of  a  wise  and  en- 
lightened mind. 

The  time  has  been,  within  the  memory  of  men 
now  living,  when  in  that  class  of  society  now  alluded 
to,  the  most  elevated,  enlightened,  and  influential 
in  giving  the  tone  to  the  public  sentiment,  and  the 
direction  to  the  manners  and  practice  of  society, 
infidelity  and  contempt  for  religion  were  far  more 
prevalent  in  this  vicinity,  than  they  are  at  the 
present  day ;  and  at  that  time  the  religion  which 
issued  from  the  pulpit,  and  which  was  the  only 
faith  that  reached  them,  was  Trinitarian  and  Calvin- 
istic.  I  hazard  nothing  in  asserting,  that  in  pro- 
portion as  those  views  of  religion,  which  are  gener- 
ally adopted  by  Unitarians,  have  become  prevalent, 
infidelity  and  contempt  of  religion  have  become  less 
and  less  frequent ;  and  our  most  enlightened  men, 
with  scarcely  any  exception,  are  among  its  most 
efficient  friends  and  serious  and  practical  professors. 

I  have  now  said  all  that  I  meant  to  say  upon  the 
doctrine  of  Christianity,  as  held  by  Unitarians,  its 
comparison  with  the  Trinitarian  and  Calvinistic 
faith,  and  its  tendency  and  moral  influence.  I  have 
endeavoured  to  express  myself  with  the  most  perfect 
freedom  and  plainness ;  yet  with  the  decorum  and 
respect  due  to  the  solemn  and  interesting  subjects 
which  have  come  before  me,  to  the  author  of  the 
19 


150 

book  which  I  have  had  so  much  occasion  to  notice, 
and  to  those  fellow- christians,  who  may  dissent  from 
the  opinions  and  views  which  I  have  expressed. 

For  the  declaration  made  with  emphasis  by  Dr. 
Woods  at  the  close  of  his  book,  "  that  in  his  honest 
and  serious  apprehension,  the  Unitarian  system  is 
indeed  another  Gospel"  I  was  not  wholly  prepared  ; 
though  it  is  one  which  we  have  before  been  accus- 
tomed to  hear  in  different  forms  from  other  sources, 
for  which  we  have  less  reason  to  feel  respect.  We 
are  consoled,  however,  with  the  thought,  that  an 
excommunication,  though  pronounced  ex  cathedra, 
carries  not  with  it  now  the  terror,  which  it  once  did. 
Christians  will  venture  to  judge  between  the  rival 
systems,  and  will  take  the  liberty  to  decide,  each 
one  for  himself,  whether  the  gospel,  as  it  is  held  by 
Unitarians,  or  as  it  is  held  by  Trinitarians  and 
Calvinists,  be  the  Gospel  of  Christ. 


ERRATUM. 

P.  47, 1.  3,  for  "  by  Christ,"  read  in  Christ. 


TO 


BR  WARE'S    LETTERS 


To 


TRINITARIANS  AND  CALVINISTS 


y 

BY  LEONARD  WOODS,  D.  D. 

ABBOT  PROF.  OF  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGV  IN  THEOI..  SEM.,  ANDOVER. 


ANDOVER 

PUBLISHED  IiY  FLAGG  AND  GOULD. 

1821. 


CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION,    p.    4 — 9. 

CHAPTER  I.  9—41. 

Dr. Ware's  opinions  and  reasoning  with  respect  to  the  human  charac- 
ter, examined.— Man's  character  judged  by  a  wrong  standard,  12. 
— Basis  of  Dr.  Ware's  reasoning,  13. — His  first  argument,  from  the 
characteristics  of  early  life,  examined,  18. — Second,  from  the  in- 
terest taken  in  children,  26. — Third,  from  the  repulsiveness  of  the 
doctrine  of  depravity,  27. — Fourth,  from  the  commands,  precepts, 
&c.  29. — Fifth,  from  representations  of  Scripture,  34. 

CHAPTER  II.    41—47. 
Result  of  observation  and  experience,  as  to  original  depravity. 

CHAPTER  III.    47—61. 

Human  depravity  native. — Examples  of  the  proper  use  of  words  and 
phrases  employed  in  stating  this  doctrine,  48. — Whether  the  words 
natural,  native,  &c.  are  applicable  to  human  depravity,  51. — De- 
pravity found  in  all  men  of  every  generation,  52. — Appears  early, 
52. — Cannot  be  traced  to  any  change,  subsequently  to  man's  birth, 
53. — Operates  spontaneously,  57. — Hard  to  be  eradicated,  58. — 
An  infant  will  certainly  be  a  sinner,  58. — Argument  from  Scrip- 
ture referred  to,  GO. — Summary,  61. 

CHAPTER  IV.     62—35. 

Objections  to   depravity,   62. Unitarian  mode  of  reasoning   un- 

philosophical,    62  — Proper  mode  of  reasoning,  65. — Moral   de- 
pravity not  inconsistent  with  the  divine  perfections,  78 — 85. 

CHAPTER  V.  85—113. 

Native  depravity  not  inconsistent  with  moral  agency. — What  con- 
stitutes moral  agency,  86. — Men  sinners  as  soon  as  moral  agents, 
87. — Difficulties  attending  Dr.  Ware's  theory,  90. — No  more  in- 
consistent to  suppose  man  inclined  to  sin  at  first,  than  afterwards, 


17  CONTENTS. 

100. — Man  culpable  for  defects  of  character,  however  acquired, 
100. — Difficulties  attend  both  theories. — Influence  of  bad  example 
108. — How  far  the  circumstances  of  Adam's  sin  invalidates  the  ar- 
gument of  the  Orthodox,  110. 

CHAPTER  VI.  113—128. 
Manner  in  which  Dr.  Ware  confutes  scripture  arguments. — Argument 
from  Gen.  vi.  p.  113. — Principle  involved  in  Dr.  Ware's  reasoning, 
and  its  consequences,  116. — The  Bible  accounts  for  it,  that  some 
are  holy,  while  the  generality  are  sinful,  126. — The  worst  men 
selected  as  specimens  of  human  nature,  127. 

CHAPTER  VII.    128—140. 
Dr.  Ware's  reply  to  the   argument  from  John  iii.  3 ;    Rom.  v.  12  ; 
and  Ephes.  ii.  3. 

CHAPTER  VIII.  140—149. 
The  doctrine  of  man's  native  depravity  of  great  practical  importance. 

CHAPTER  IX.  149—198. 
On  the  doctrine  of  election. — Uncandid  representation  of  the  doctrine, 
150. — Proper  view  of  it,  I51.-The  controversy  respects  the  divine 
administration,  155 — Mistakes  corrected,  156. — Objections  consid- 
ered, 158. — No  injustice  in  distinguishing  grace,  159. — Dr. Ware's 
theory  attended  with  as  great  difficulties  as  the  Orthodox,  164. — 
Fact  confirms  the  doctrine,  169. — The  divine  purpose  ensures  the 

influence  of  motives,    171. Makes  men   moral  agents,  173. 

Extracts  from  Wesley,  1 74. — Difficulties  attending  the  denial  of 
the  doctrine,  175. — Argument  from  John  xvii.  p.  176. — Ephes.  i. 
3 — 11.  p.  182. — The  supposition  that  communities  only  are  elected, 
183.— Rom.  ix.  p.  193. 

CHAPTER  X.  198—216. 
Atonement. — Doctrine  of  redemption,  as  held  by  Dr.  Ware,  198. — 
Five  objections  to  his  scheme,  199 — 208. — Remarks  on  figurative 
language,_&c.  209. 

CHAPTER  XI.  216—228. 

Dr.  Ware's  objections  to  Divine  influence,  considered,  216 — 220. — 
Moral  influence  of  the  two  systems  compared,  220. 


INTRODUCTION. 


When  I  wrote  the  Letters  to  Unitarians,  I  meant 
to  treat  the  subjects  of  the  present  controversy  so  ex- 
plicitly, and  to  extend  my  remarks  to  such  a  length,  that 
I  might,  in  any  case,  have  a  full  apology  for  declining 
a  rejoinder.  I  then  had,  and  have  still  many  and 
weighty  reasons  against  being  a  party  in  any  religious 
controversy.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  the  way  in 
which  1  have  generally  supposed  I  could  best  labour  for 
the  promotion  of  the  cause  of  Christ.  The  duties  im- 
posed upon  me  by  my  office  are  sufficiently  extensive 
and  important,  to  occupy  all  my  time  and  my  powers  of 
action  ;  sufficiently  diversified,  abundantly  to  satisfy  my 
love  of  variety  ;  and  so  congenial  to  my  inclinations,  as  to 
afford  all  the  enjoyment  which  can  be  expected  by  any 
man,  oppressed  with  the  cares  of  public  life  and  the 
imperfections  of  human  nature.  But  for  my  reluc- 
tance to  engage  in  controversy,  I  have  had  another  rea- 
son. In  the  regular  course  of  my  official  duty,  though  I 
have  much  to  do  with  all  the  controverted  subjects  of 
religion,  and  though  I  never  impose  any  restraints  upon 
the  freedom  of  discussion,  but  those  of  decency  ;  it  has 
still  cost  me  no  effort,  to  keep  my  mind  free  from  agita- 
tion. But  as  to  public  religious  controversy,  I  have  ob- 
served its  unhappy  influence  upon  so  many  men  of  dis- 
tinguished excellence  ;  I  have  seen  that  it  has  so  often 
marred  the  best  natural  temper;  that  it  has  so  often  oc- 
casioned the  offensive  boast  of  victory,  or  that  which  is 
no  less  offensive,  the  sullen  mortification  of  defeat  ;  that 
2 


it  has  so  ot'ten  injured  the  beauty  of  men's  characters, 
cooled  the  ardour  of  their  piety,  and  detracted  much 
from  their  comfort,  or  at  least  from  the  comfort  of  their 
friends,  that  I  have  earnestly  wished  to  avoid  the  dan- 
ger. I  have  wished  also,  if  possible,  to  avoid  the  sulfer- 
ings  of  controversy  ;  the  unhappiness  of  being  exposed 
to  the  charge  of  bigotry  or  party  spirit,  of  ambition  or 
meanness,  of  arrogance  or  imbecility  ;  the  unhappiness 
of  being  reproached  or  despised  by  my  opposers,  or  the 
greater  unhappiness  of  feeling  any  disposition  to  re- 
proach or  despise  them.  Besides,  I  have  thought,  that, 
at  least  so  far  as  I  was  concerned,  truth  and  piety  might 
be  more  successfully  promoted  by  more  silent,  gentle 
means.  I  have  feared  that  an  attempt  even  to  advance 
the  cause  of  pure  religion,  in  a  controversial  way,  would 
kindle  a  fire  which  would  endanger  the  most  precious 
interests  of  the  church,  and  which  Christians,  possessing 
the  strongest  attachment  to  Christ,  and  blessed  with  the 
largest  portion  of  his  spirit,  might  in  vain  try  to  ex- 
tinguish. 

These  and  other  like  considerations  may  seem  tri- 
lling to  men  on  both  sides,  who  cherish  a  disputa- 
tious spirit,  who  pant,  for  the  noise  and  strife  of  contro- 
versy, and  who  have  never  soberly  considered  the  evils 
likely  to  result  from  it.  But  in  my  mind,  such  consid- 
erations, as  I  have  suggested,  are  of  no  ordinary  impor- 
tance ;  and  for  a  long  time  they  produced  in  me  a  reso- 
lution against  controversy,  which,  till  of  late,  I  thought 
could  never  be  overcome.  But  as  it  is,  I  must  now  go 
forward,  hoping  to  derive  benefit  to  myself  from 
the  kind  and  amiable  temper  of  my  opponent,  and  no 
less  benefit  to  my  cause,  from  the  frankness  with  which 
he  declares  his  opinions,  and  the  zeal  with  which  he 
attacks  mine. 


I  do  not  come  to  this  task  with  an  expectation  of 
producing,  generally,  any  material  change  in  the  views 
of  confirmed  Unitarians.  I  should  be  a  poor  proficient 
in  the  science  of  the  human  mind,  could  1  not  foresee, 
that  my  arguments  will  be  likely  to  appear  as  inconclu- 
sive to  them,  as  theirs  do  to  me.  My  age  and  experi- 
ence have  somewhat  cooled  the  ardour  of  feeling,  which 
might  once  have  led  me  to  indulge  different  expectations, 
and  to  think  that  ray  opponents  and  all  others  might  easily 
be  convinced  of  the  truth  of  my  opinions.  I  have  lived 
long  enough  to  learn,  that  arguments  have  a  different 
weight  in  the  judgment  of  different  men,  and  that  some- 
thing besides  argument  is  concerned  in  controversy.  In 
the  present  case,  the  facts,  which  are  the  principles  of 
reasoning,  are  different ;  just  as  might  be  the  case  with 
two  philosophers,  who,  making  use  of  instruments  not 
agreeing  together,  or  using  the  same  instruments  in  very 
different  ways,  might  come  to  a  different  judgment  re- 
specting the  phenomena  of  light,  or  any  other  material 
substance  ;  in  consequence  of  which,  both  of  them  might 
reason  correctly  on  the  ground  of  what  they  had  discov- 
ered to  be  the  properties  of  that  substance,  and  yet  be 
conducted  to  different  and  opposite  conclusions.  In  the 
controversy  respecting  depravity,  the  facts,  which  are 
admitted  by  the  two  parties,  as  the  foundations  of  their 
respective  systems,  are  not  the  same;  nor  is  the  method 
of  ascertaining  what  facts  really  exist,  the  same.  "  Now 
it  is  very  natural  for  us  to  suppose,  that  the  habits  of 
thinking,  and  feeling,  and  judging,  which  have  led  men  to 
embrace  the  Unitarian  creed  in  regard  to  this  subject, 
will  give  them  but  a  poor  opinion  of  our  arguments.  If 
we  were  exactly  in  their  case,  we  presume  our  judg- 
ment would  be  like  theirs.  Did  not  our  own  experi- 
ence,— did  not  a  faithful  comparison   of  our   heart   and 


life  with  the  rule  of  duty,  fully  convince  us  of  the  fact, 
that  our  own  nature  is  the  subject  of  an  original,  deep- 
rooted  corruption  ;  no  external  evidence  could  easily  in- 
duce us  to  believe  the  fact  in  relation  to  others. 

It  may  be  asked  then,  what  good  I  hope  to  accom- 
plish by  pursuing  this  controversy  ?  One  good  purpose, 
perhaps  the  principal. one,  which  I  hope  to  effect,  is,  to 
satisfy  the  serious  friends  of  orthodoxy,  that,  after  all 
the  attacks  which  have  been  made  upon  their  reli- 
gion, it  rests  on  an  immoveable  basis ;  that  it  has  as 
much  solid  argument  to  support  it,  as  they  have  ever 
supposed.  I  hope  also  to  convince  those  who,  not  being 
yet  settled  in  their  belief,  are  candidly  inquiring,  what  is 
truth,  that  the  system  of  orthodoxy,  at  least  in  its  prin- 
cipal features,  so  far  corresponds  with  the  word  of  God, 
and  with  sound  experience,  and  that  its  moral  tendency 
is  in  so  high  a  degree  salutary,  that  they  ought  to  make 
many  a  serious  pause,  before  they  reject  it.  And  finally, 
I  should  be  glad  to  do  something  towards  convincing  can- 
did Unitarians  of  that,  which  has  indeed  always  been  suf- 
ficiently proved,  that  those  who  embrace  the  scheme  of 
orthodoxy,  do  not  necessarily  resign  all  claims  to  manly 
strength  of  understanding,  nor  show  themselves  enemies 
to  freedom  and  fairness  of  investigation. 

There  are  many  passages,  of  a  taking  plausibility,  in 
Dr.  Ware's  Letters,  against  which  a  charge  of  incor- 
rectness might  easily  be  sustained,  but  which,  as  they 
relate  to  matters  of  small  consequence  in  the  controver- 
sy, I  shall  pass  over  with  little  or  no  attention.  I  say 
this  to  guard  my  readers  against  supposing,  that  my  si- 
lence on  any  part  of  the  Letters  is  to  be  interpreted  as 
a  sign  of  approbation.  My  purpose  is  to  fix  on  the  main 
points  of  the  controversy,  and  to  dwell  upon  those  argu- 
ments, on  which  all  who  will  bring  themselves  to  patient 


and  thorough  inquiry,  must  lay  the  greatest  stress.  It 
we  can  defend  the  general  principles  which  have  gov- 
erned our  reasoning  ;  if  we  can,  by  legitimate  arguments, 
support  the  chief  doctrines  of  our  system,  and  vindicate 
them  from  the  chief  objections  of  opposers,  the  work  is 
done.  Let  the  strength  of  the  foundation  be  made  to 
appear,  and  we  shall  not  doubt  the  building  will  stand. 
And  as  to  the  scheme  which  we  feel  it  to  be  our  duty 
to  oppose, — if  we  can  succeed  in  taking  away  its  foun- 
dation, we  shall  deem  it  sufficient,  without  either  mak- 
ing a  violent  attack  upon  the  superstructure  to  hasten 
its  fall,  or  standing  by  to  exult  in  its  ruins. 


CHAPTER  I. 

To  prepare  the  way  for  an  useful  investigation  of 
the  subject  of  human  depravity,  I  shall  present  in  one 
connected  view  the  opinions  which  Dr.  Ware  has  ad- 
vanced in  different  parts  of  his  third  Letter. 

"  I  insist,"  he  says,  "  that  the  account  usually  given 
of  human  wickedness  is  exaggerated/' — "  Men  are  not 
the  mere  brutes  and  fiends  it  would  make  them.  There 
is  much  good  as  well  as  evil  in  the  human  character;" 
(meaning  the  natural  character.)  "  As  much  as  there 
is  of  wickedness  and  vice,  there  is  far  more  of  virtue  and 
goodness." — "If  we  take  a  fair  and  full  view,  we  shall  find 
that  in  by  far  the  greatest  part  of  human  beings,  the 
just,  and  kind,  and  benevolent  dispositions  prevail  beyond 
measure  over  the  opposite  ;  and  that  even  in  the  worst 
men,  good  feelings  and  principles  are  predominant,  and 
they  probably  perform  in  the  course  of  their  lives  many 
more  good  than  bad  actions  ;  as  the  greatest  liar  docs, 
by  the  constitution  of  his  nature,  doubtless  speak   many 


10 

truths  to  every  lie  he  utters." — "  Man  is  by  nature — or  as 
he  is  born  into  the  world,  innocent  and  pure  ;  free  from 
all  moral  corruption,  as  well  as  destitute  of  all  positive 
holiness  ;  and  until  he  has  formed  a  character  either 
good  or  bad,  an  object  of  the  divine  complacency  and  fa- 
vour."— "  He  is  by  nature  no  more  inclined  to  vice  than 
to  virtue." — "  In  early  life,  we  see  no  proofs  of  deprav- 
ity, of  malignity,  of  inclination  to  evil  irK  preference  to 
good." — "  What  I  have  stated  I  am  persuaded  is  the  gen- 
eral character,  until  the  disposition  and  tendency  of  na- 
ture has  been  changed  by  education,  example,  and  cir- 
cumstances."— "  I  know  not  a  single  mark  of  early  de- 
pravity common  to  children  in  general,  which  n\ay  not 
be  fairly  traced  to  causes  which  imply  no  degree  of  de- 
pravity, and  no  fault  of  character  or  disposition." — "  No 
man,  I  am  persuaded,  was  ever  led  by  personal  observa- 
tion and  experience  to  the  thought  of  an  original  deprav- 
ity of  human  nature." — "Young  children,"  (he  means  in 
their  natural  state,)  "  are  what  men  are  to  become  by 
regeneration." — "  Those  now  born  into  the  world  in 
christian  lands,  are,  as  the  Ephesians  were  after  their 
conversion  to  Christianity,  saved  by  the  grace  of  God, 
quickened,  raised  from  the  dead,  made  nigh  by  the  blood  of 
Christ,  fellow  citizens  with  the  saints,  of  the  household  of 
God" — "All  this  language  was  applied  to  the  Ephesians 
universally  after  their  conversion,  and  all  of  it  is  as  ap- 
plicable universally  now  to  those  who  are  Christians  by 
birth,  as  distinguished  from  those  who  are  heathen  by 
birth." 

The  scheme  more  briefly  is  this.  Man  is  born  into 
the  world  free  from  corruption  of  nature,  or  pro- 
pensity to  evil.  We  see  no  proofs  of  depravity  in 
childhood,  no  proofs  of  inclination  to  evil  rather  than 
good.     All  who  are  now  born  into  the  world  in  Christian 


11 

lands  are  saints,  saved  by  grace,  as  the  converted  Ephe- 
sians  were.  Every  mark  of  depravity  common  to  child- 
ren may  be  traced  to  causes  which  imply  no  depravity 
at  all.  Even  in  the  worst  of  men  good  feelings  and 
principles  are  predominant. 

It  may  be  useless  for  me  to  stop  here  to  express  the 
astonishment  that  good  men  must  generally  feel,  at  such 
a  description  of  the  human  character.  For  myself,  while 
I  have  the  Bible,  and  my  own  heart,  and  the  world  be- 
fore my  eyes,  it  is  as  impossible  for  me  to  admit  the 
truth  of  the  system  above  stated,  as  the  truth  of  a 
system  of  philosophy  which  denies  the  principle  of 
gravitation  ;  and  for  the  same  reason. 

Dr.  Ware  says  he  is  persuaded,  that  "  no  man  was  ever 
led  by  personal  observation  or  experience  to  the  thought 
of  an  original  depravity  of  human  nature."  I  have  no 
doubt  he  has  such  a  persuasion  ;  but  it  is  a  little 
remarkable  that  he  should  have  it,  when  by  conversing 
either  with  authors,  or  with  living  Christians,  he  might 
so  easily  have  discovered  its  contrariety  to  fact.  Thou- 
sands and  millions  of  enlightened  Christians  have  declar- 
ed, and  multitudes  of  them  in  writing,  that  personal  ob- 
servation and  experience  have  led  them  to  believe  in 
the  moral  depravation  of  man,  or  in  his  native  propen- 
sity to  evil.  They  have  said  it  when  they  have  had  no 
motive  to  say  it,  but  the  strength  of  their  own  conviction. 
They  have  said  it  in  their  most  solemn  devotions  ;  and 
they  have  said  it  most  frequently,  and  felt  it  most  deep- 
ly, when  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in 
the  face  of  Jesus  Christ  has  shone  in  their  hearts  with  the 
greatest  clearness.  And  I  will  add  what  has  been  re- 
marked by  many  writers,  that  those  who  have  most 
carefully  studied  human  nature,  even  among  pagans,  have 
acknowledged,  and  that  in  very  strong  terms,  an  inward 


12 

depravation  and  corruption  of  man,  rendering  the   mind 
averse  to  good  and  inclining  it  to  evil. 

In  reflecting  on  this  subject,  I  am  led  to  inquire  how 
it  can  be  accounted  for,  that  any  man  of  sober  judgment 
should  entertain  such  views  respecting  the  human  char- 
acter. Now  so  far  as  reasoning  is  concerned,  I  am  sat- 
isfied, that  the  principal  errour  in  the  scheme  of  Unita- 
rians and  Pelagians  generally,  lies  in  this,  that  they  judge 
of  man's  character  by  a  wrong  standard.  This  contro- 
versy respects  man,  not  as  an  animal  or  intellectual  be- 
ing, nor  as  a  member  of  domestic  or  civil  society,  but  as 
a  subject  of  God's  moral  government.  Viewed  in  this 
light,  he  is  required  to  conform  to  the  moral  law.  This 
is  the  only  rule  of  duty,  the  only  standard  of  right  feel- 
ing and  right  action.  If  we  would  know  whether  any 
subject  of  God's  moral  government  is  holy  or  sinful,  or 
in  what  degree  he  is  so,  we  must  compare  his  moral 
character  with  the  divine  law.  So  far  as  he  is  conform- 
ed to  that  law,  he  is  holy.  So  far  as  he  is  not  conform- 
ed, he  is  sinful.  And  as  we  are  taught,  that  love  to  God 
and  love  to  man  is  the  sum  of  what  the  law  requires  ; 
it  is  perfectly  safe,  and  often  very  convenient  in  our  rea- 
soning, to  make  use  of  this  summary  of  the  law,  as  stand- 
ing for  the  whole.  This  then  being  our  rule  of  judg- 
ment, what  will  be  our  conclusion  respecting  the  moral 
character  exhibited  by  human  beings  in  early  life  ?  Let 
the  inquiry  relate  to  the  first  character  they  exhibit,  as 
moral  agents  ;  so  that  we  may  not  unnecessarily  perplex 
the  subject,  at  the  outset,  by  looking  after  the  moral  af- 
fections or  actions  of  men,  either  before  they  are  moral 
agents,  or  before  the  divine  commands  can  be  applied 
to  them.  Is  it  the  general  character  of  men,  that, 
as  soon  as  the  divine  law  is  declared  to  them,  they  are 
disposed  cordially  to  obey  it  ?     We    will   not  so  shape 


13 

the  inquiry,  that  it  shall  relate  merely  to  exemption  from 
sin.  The  real  question  is,  whether  holy  love  to  God 
and  man  is  the  first  moral  affection  which  human  be- 
ings generally  exercise,  after  they  become  moral  agents 
and  are  expressly  informed  what  God  requires  of  them. 
Keeping  this  point  distinctly  in  view,  let  us  now  proceed 
to  examine 

The  reasoning  by  which  Dr.  Ware  supports  his  opin- 
ion respecting  the  human  character. 

The  reasoning  of  Dr.  Ware  on  this  subject  is  indeed 
plausible,  being  founded  upon  those  natural  qualities  of 
the  youthful  mind,  which  are  honoured  with  the  names 
of  virtue,  and  universally  regarded  as  amiable  and  use- 
ful. He  says,  "innocence,  simplicity,  and  purity  are  the 
characteristics  of  early  life." — "  Veracity,  kindness,  good- 
will, flow  from  the  natural  feelings." — "How  early  does 
the  infant  discover  affection,  attachment,  gratitude  to 
those  from  whom  it  receives  kindness."  These  are 
charming  names,  and  I  am  very  sensible  that  charming 
qualities  of  human  nature  are  denoted  by  them.  And 
charming  too  are  the  complexion  and  features  of  a 
beautiful  child,  the  sprightliness  of  its  temper,  and  the 
activity  of  its  limbs.  But  do  any  or  all  of  these  consti- 
tute conformity  to  the  moral  law  ?  Do  they  render  a 
child  holy? 

But  Dr.  Ware,  with  a  view  to  consistency,  will  pro- 
bably say,  he  does  not  mention  the  lovely  qualities  which 
are  characteristic  of  early  life,  as  a  proof  of  moral  virtue, 
or  holiness,  because  the  infant  child  has  not  yet  actually 
formed  a  character,  either  good  or  bad,  and  so  is  nei- 
ther holy  nor  unholy.  But  although  this  would  have  an 
appearance  of  consistency  in  one  respect,  it  would,  in 
another  respect,  involve  the  writer  in  a  great  inconsis- 
tency. For  if  this  is  his  meaning  how  is  it  possible  to 
3 


14 

make  his  remarks,  p.  26,  apposite  to  his  subject  ?  His 
subject  is  man's  moral  character.  He  had  just  be- 
fore been  charging  the  Orthodox  with  giving  an  exagge- 
rated description  of  human  nature,  inasmuch  as  they  do 
not  take  proper  notice  of  what  is  "  virtuous,  and  kind,  and 
amiable,  and  good ;" — words  all  denoting  moral  quali- 
ties. After  thus  distinctly  bringing  forward  his  subject, 
that  is,  human  nature  in  respect  to  its  moral  qualities,  he 
says,"our  most  correct  ideas  of  human  nature  will  be  drawn 
from  the  characteristics  of  infancy,  and  the  earliest  indi- 
cations of  disposition,  tendency,  and  character  in  the  in- 
fant mind."  Forgetting  what  he  ventures  to  say  in 
other  places,  that  men  by  their  natural  birth  receive  no 
moral  character,  and  have  none,  before  they  are  born 
again,  he  here  speaks  of  the  indications  of  character  in 
the  infant  mind. 

Let  us  give  this  language  a  fair  examination,  and  see 
whether  any  sense  whatever  that  can  be  put  upon  it, 
will  make  the  writer  who  uses  it  consistent  with  him- 
self.— -When  he  speaks  of  the  indications  of  character  in 
the  infant  mind,  I  ask  what  character  is  meant  ?  Is  it 
the  character  which  belongs  to  man,  as  a  moral  agent, 
or  in  relation  to  a  moral  law  ?  Then  it  would  seem  the 
infant  mind  has  such  a  character,  and  that  character 
must  be  either  good  or  bad,  holy  or  unholy  ;  which 
would  be  contrary  to  Dr.  Ware's  statements,  p.  20,  41, 
and  elsewhere.  But  if  he  does  not  mean  the  moral 
character  of  man,  or  his  character  as  a  moral  agent ; 
then  his  observations,  p.  26,  do  not  relate  at  all  to  the 
subject  of  controversy.  For  the  only  point  at  issue  is, 
what  is  man's  nature  or  character,  as  a  moral  agent, 
and  in  relation  to  a  moral  law  ?  I  ask  then  again,  has 
the  infant  really  a  character  in  this  respect  ?  If  so, 
that  character  must  be  either  holy  or  unholy  ;  and  then 


15 

what  becomes  of  Dr.  Ware's  favourite  position,  that  in- 
fants are  both  free  from  moral  corruption  and  destitute 
of  holiness,  and  that  they  have  no  moral  character, 
either  good  or  bad,  before  they  are  born  again?  On 
the  other  hand,  if  it  is  a  fact,  as  he  maintains,  that  in- 
fants have  no  moral  character ;  then  the  characteris- 
tics of  infancy  which  he  enumerates,  p.  26,  can  nowise  re- 
late to  moral  character,  i.  e.  they  can  nowise  relate  to 
the  subject  under  consideration  ;  and  so  far  as  this  sub- 
ject is  concerned,  he  might  just  as  well  ment:on  a  fair 
complexion  or  beautiful  countenance,  as  "  innocence, 
simplicity,  and  purity." 

It  may,  however,  be  said,  that  "  the  characteristics 
of  infancy,  and  the  earliest  indications  of  disposition,  ten- 
dency, and  character  in  the  infant  mind,"  though  the  in- 
fant mind  does  not  yet  possess  a  moral  character,  may 
still  help  us  in  some  other  way,  to  "  correct  ideas  of  hu- 
man nature."  Dr.  Ware  will  not  say  that  these  charac- 
teristics of  infancy  prove  the  nature  of  man  to  be  holy  by 
proving  that  holiness  really  belongs  to  the  infant's  mind  ; 
for,  as  remarked  before,  this  would  be  contrary  to  one 
of  his  main  points.  How  then  does  his  reasoning  stand  ? 
Does  he  mean  to  say,  that  those  things,  which  are  char- 
acteristics of  human  nature  at  a  period  when  moral 
character  does  not  exist,  that  is,  that  those  properties  of 
infancy  which  cannot  be  indications  of  any  moral  charac- 
ter at  the  time,  are  true  indications  of  that  moral  charac- 
ter which  subsequently  exists  ?  But  this  again  would 
involve  his  reasoning  in  difficulty,  because,  according  to 
his  views,  mankind  after  becoming  moral  agents,  arc  not 
thus  innocent,  and  pure,  and  free  from  inclination  to  sin. 

But  as  I  wish  to  do  full  justice  to  my  opponent,  and 
as  far  possible  to  give  to  his  words  the  very  sense  which 
he  meant  to  express,  I  must  say,  that  his   language  and 


16 

his  reasoning  plainly  imply,  that  human  beings,  at  that 
period  of  infancy  to  which  he  refers,  do  really  possess  a 
moral  character.  What  he  has  written  in  different  pla- 
ces, taken  together,  evidently  show  that  this  is  his  opin- 
ion. He  says,  p.  26,  "  we  draw  our  most  correct  ideas 
of  human  nature  from  the  characteristics  of  infancy,  and 
from  the  earliest  indications  of  disposition,  tendency,  and 
character  in  the  infant  mind."  Among  these  character- 
istics of  infancy,  he  mentions  "  innocence,  simplicity,  and 
purity ;"  which  he  doubtless  means  we  should  under- 
stand to  be  moral  qualities.  And  a  little  below,  after 
speaking  of  an  infant  as  an  object  of  interest  to  those 
about  it,  he  asks,  "  Would  it  be  so  if  it  appeared  to  pos- 
sess nothing  good,  and  no  tendency  to  good?"  evident- 
ly implying  that  it  does  possess  something  good.  In  an- 
other place,  he  represents  men  as  becoming  "  reasona- 
ble, accountable  beings,  by  their  natural  birth."  If  they 
are  accountable  beings,  they  are  moral  agents,  and  must 
have  moral  dispositions.  He  says  too,  still  more  plainly, 
p.  31,  that  young  children  have  a  "  good  disposition;" 
"  that  they  are  what  men  become  by  regeneration ;" 
that  they  "  are  objects  of  the  Saviour's  complacency," 
and  "  proper  objects  of  imitation."  From  these  very 
plain,  unequivocal  declarations  of  Dr.  Ware  I  cannot 
but  infer  what  his  real  opinion  is,  namely,  that  by  their 
natural  birth  men  become  moral,  accountable  beings, 
and  have  a  moral  disposition  or  character  which  is 
good  ;  good  or  holy  in  such  a  sense,  as  to  entitle  them 
to  the  Saviour's  complacency,  and  make  them  heirs 
of  his  kingdom.  I  am  compelled  to  think  this  is  the 
position  he  would  maintain,  though  in  several  places  he 
seems  to  slide  away  to  another  side  of  his  system,  and 
asserts  that  men  by  nature  have  no  moral  character, 
and  are  equally  distant  from  holiness  and  from  sin,  and 


17 

equally  without   any  natural   tendency   to   one   or  the 
other. 

Before  proceeding  to  a  direct  examination  of  Dr. 
Ware's  arguments  in  support  of  his  opinion  respecting 
human  nature,  I  will  make  one  remark.  If  my  position, 
that  men  are  by  their  birth  morally  corrupt  is  thought 
to  be  absurd,  on  account  of  their  being  incapable,  at 
first,  of  possessing  any  character,  good  or  bad ;  the  posi- 
tion of  Dr.  Ware  is  in  this  respect  equally  absurd.  For 
if  men,  as  they  come  into  the  world, — if  infants,  are  ca- 
pable of  being  "^mre,"  they  are  capable  of  being  impure. 
If  they  are  capable  of  having  a  good  disposition,  or 
i;  tendency  to  good,"  they  are  capable  of  a  bad  disposi- 
tion, or  a  tendency  to  evil.  If  they  are  capable  of  such 
a  character  as  will  render  them  "objects  of  divine  com- 
placency," they  are  equally  capable  of  such  a  charac- 
ter as  will  render  them  objects  of  divine  displeasure. 
It  is  Dr.  Ware's  opinion,  p.  21,  that  man  is  by  nature  as 
capable  of  vice  as  of  virtue.  I  should  hope  therefore 
that  neither  he,  nor  any  one  who  embraces  his  .opinions, 
will  ever  again  allege  the  incapacity  of  infants  to  be  the 
subjects  of  moral  corruption,  as  an  objection  against  the 
doctrine  of  native  depravity. 

When  I  say  that  many  plain  and  unequivocal  decla- 
rations of  Dr.  Ware  and  the  general  current  of  his  rea- 
soning prove  that  he  believes  man  by  nature  the  sub- 
ject of  real  virtue  or  holiness,  I  would  not  willingly 
oblige  myself  to  show,  that  he  has  nowhere  written  any 
thing  contrary  to  this.  For  in  commenting  on  John  iii. 
3,  6,  he  does  indeed  represent  that  "  men  receive  by  their 
natural  birth  only  human  nature  ;  that  they  receive  no 
moral  character,  but  only  the  faculties  and  powers  in 
the  exercise  of  which  a  moral  character  is  to  be  form- 
ed ;  and  that  the  formation  of  a   moral  character,   (he 


18 

does  not  say  whether  good  or  bad,)  introduces  them  in- 
to a  new  state  of  being,  and  may  be  called  a  new  birth  ; 
and  in  p.  42,  he  seems  to  think  the  implication  of  the 
passage  is,  "  that  men  do  not  possess  by  birth  that  char- 
acter of  personal  holiness,  which  is  necessary  to  their 
being  Christians."  It  may  be  easier  for  Dr.  Ware,  than 
for  me,  to  reconcile  these  representations  with  the  pas- 
sages to  which  I  have  before  referred. 

Let  us  now  see,  by  what  particular  arguments  he 
supports  the  opinion,  that  men  are  by  nature  not  only 
free  from  moral  corruption,  but  inclined  to  virtue. 

He  first  argues  from  the  innocence,  simplicity,  and  pu- 
rity of  early  life,  and  from  the  veracity,  kindness,  good-will, 
attachment  and  gratitude,  which  flow  from  the  natural  feel- 
ings of  children. 

To  guard  against  being  imposed  upon  by  names,  let 
us  here  inquire  what  is  that  innocence,  simplicity,  purity, 
&c.  which  are  in  reality  characteristic  of  the  infant  mind? 

The  word  innocence,  when  applied  to  men  in  regard 
to  moral  character,  signifies  freedom  from  moral  defile- 
ment, or  guilt.  But  when  applied  to  other  things,  it 
commonly  denotes  that  they  are  harmless,  or  free  from 
a  tendency  to  do  hurt.  In  this  sense  a  dove  and  a  lamb 
are  said  to  be  innocent.  If  I  mistake  not,  this  is  gener- 
ally the  meaning  of  the  word,  when  applied  to  infant 
children.  It  is  in  regard  to  this  kind  of  innocence,  that 
they  are  so  often  compared  to  lambs  and  doves. 

Simplicity,  when  applied  to  rational  beings,  properly 
signifies  artlessness,  freedom  from  cunning  or  deceit. 
Infants  and  young  children  may  have  simplicity  in  this 
sense,  merely  because  they  are  incapable  of  subtilty  or 
cunning,  or  because  they  have  had  no  temptation  to 
learn  any  deceitful  arts. 

In  what  sense  Dr.  Ware  uses  the  word  purity  it  is 


19 

not  easy  for  me  to  determine.  If  he  uses  it  in  that  high 
moral  sense,  in  which  our  Saviour  uses  it  when  he  says, 
"  blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart,"  and  so  means  to  assert 
as  a  general  truth,  that  moral  purity  or  holiness  is  a 
characteristic  of  early  life ;  I  would  not  repeat  in  my 
reply  what  has  already  been  suggested,  as  to  the  con- 
trariety of  this  to  other  representations  in  his  Letters  ; 
but  would  direct  the  reader's  attention  a  moment  to 
the  shape  which  his  reasoning  assumes. 

He  undertakes  to  prove  the  truth  of  a  disputed  doc- 
trine respecting  human  nature ;  i.  e.  that  man  is  not  the 
subject  of  innate  corruption  ;  and  as  a  proof  of  this,  he 
urges  the  purity  which  characterizes  early  life.  Now 
if  he  uses  the  word  purity  as  synonymous  with  holiness, 
he  is  chargeable  with  begging  the  question.  But  if  he 
uses  the  word  in  an  inferior  sense,  not  including  moral 
purity  or  holiness  ;  then  how  can  it  prove  that  man  is 
not  morally  depraved  ?  But  it  may  be  he  uses  the  word 
merely  to  denote  freedom  from  particular  forms  of  vice 
which  show  themselves  in  the  world;  or  he  may  use  it 
comparatively,  and  mean  only  that  children  are  not  yet 
tainted  with  those  gross  iniquities  to  which  they  are  af- 
terwards exposed.  To  either  of  these  views  of  the  sub- 
ject we  should  fully  agree. 

And  what  are  we  to  suppose  Dr.  Ware  means  by 
the  attachment,  the  kindness,  the  gratitude,  which  show 
themselves  in  little  children?  Does  he  mean  any  thing 
which  has  the  nature  of  moral  virtue  or  holiness?  If  so, 
his  reasoning  is  faulty  in  the  same  way  as  before.  But 
if  he  does  not  consider  the  attachment  and  gratitude, 
which  are  characteristics  of  infancy,  and  which,  accord- 
ing to  several  passages  in  his  Letters,  precede  the  form- 
ation of  any  moral  character,  as  having  a  moral  nature  ; 
then  I  think  he  must  regard    them    much   in    the    same 


20 

light,  as  he  would  those  natural  instincts,  appetites  and 
passions,  the  existence  and  exercise  of  which  are  not  at 
all  connected  with  moral  character,  and  imply  neither 
holiness  nor  sin. 

We  see  now  how  the  argument  stands,  and  are  pre- 
pared to  examine  how  forcible  and  conclusive  it  is. 
The  abovementioned  characteristics  of  the  infant 
mind  are  insisted  upon,  as  a  proof,  and  a  most  im- 
portant proof,  that  man  is  by  nature  free  from  moral 
depravity.     I  maintain,  that  they  do  not  prove  it. 

I  say,  first,  what  several  passages  in  Dr.  Ware's  Let- 
ters will  bear  me  out  in  saying,  that  none  of  "  the  char- 
acteristics of  infancy,"  none  of  those  things  which  "  flow 
from  the  natural  feelings,"  can,  in  reality,  be  of  the  na- 
ture of  moral  virtue,  and  so  none  of  them  can  make 
known  the  moral  disposition  or  character  of  the  mind, 
as  the  fruit  makes  known  the  tree.  Take  the  inno- 
cence, the  attachment,  the  gratitude,  and  other  obvious 
characteristics  of  little  children,  just  as  they  are.  What 
do  they  prove,  as  to  moral  character  ?  Nothing.  They 
neither  prove  the  existence  of  holiness,  nor  freedom  from 
sin.  If  you  would  have  conclusive  evidence  of  this,  look 
at  the  numberless  instances,  in  which  characteristics  of 
the  same  nature,  and  often  higher  in  degree,  are  found 
actually  to  exist  in  those,  who  live  in  the  violation  of 
the  first  and  great  command.  Do  we  not  often  find 
youth,  especially  in  well  educated  families,  possessed  of 
all  those  amiable  qualities,  which  Dr.  Ware  mentions  as 
proofs  of  freedom  from  moral  evil  ?  Do  we  not  see  a 
sweetness  and  tenderness  of  disposition,  which  keep  them 
at  the  greatest  distance  from  doing  any  thing  to  injure 
a  fellow  creature  ?  And  do  we  not  see  too  either  a 
power  of  conscience,  or  a  delicate  sense  of  what  is  de- 
cent and  honourable,  which  leads  them  to  abhor  every 


21 

open  vice  ?  This  is  called  innocence.  But  is  not  inno- 
cence of  this  sort  often  associated  with  forgetfulness  of 
God,  and  the  neglect  of  all  the  peculiar  duties  of  reli- 
gion ?  Let  multitudes,  blooming  in  all  the  attractive 
loveliness  of  youthful  innocence,  measure  their  moral  af- 
fections and  character  by  that  holy  law,  in  which  God 
asserts  his  rightful  claims,  requiring  them  to  love  him 
with  all  the  heart,  and  to  worship  him  in  spirit  and  in 
truth ;  and  will  they  not  find  themselves  guilty  before 
God,  and  be  compelled  to  say,  as  the  Apostle  did,  "  I 
was  alive  without  the  law  once  ;  but  when  the  com- 
mandment came,  sin  revived,  and  I  died  ?"  In  the  la- 
mentable instances  of  this  kind,  which  constantly  occur, 
we  see  that  what  is  called  youthful  innocence  actually 
consists  with  that  alienation  of  heart  from  God,  which 
is  treated  in  the  Scriptures,  as  the  greatest  of  sins,  and 
indeed  as  the  foundation  and  sum  of  all  moral  evil.  How 
then  can  Dr.  Ware  make  it  an  evidence  of  freedom  from 
moral  evil  ?  If  it  may  consist  with  moral  evil  in  youth,  why 
not  in  childhood  ?  But  the  argument  is  stronger  than  this. 
If  what  is  called  innocence  actually  consists  with  a  high 
degree  of  moral  evil  in  youth  ;  much  more  may  it  con- 
sist with  a  smaller  degree  of  the  same  in  early  child- 
hood. 

I  reason  in  the  same  way  respecting  the  other 
characteristics  of  early  life,  mentioned  by  Dr.  Ware. 
How  does  the  "simplicity"  or  artlessncss  of  children 
prove,  that  they  are  not  morally  corrupt  ?  They  may 
be  simple,  unsuspicious,  and  artless,  because  they  have 
had  no  opportunities  or  temptations  to  become  other- 
wise. They  may  have  what  is  sometimes  denominated 
purity  ;  that  is,  they  may  be  free  from  the  contamination 
of  those  vices,  which  are  stamped  with  a  visible  and  dis- 
graceful grossness,  because  they  have  not  been  expos- 
4 


22 

ed  to  that  contamination,  or  because  a  regard  to 
reputation,  or  the  power  of  conscience  has  been  a 
salutary  restraint;  and  yet  divine  truth  may  decide,  that 
*'  they  have  not  the  love  of  God  in  their  hearts."  Nor 
is  that  disposition  to  speak  the  truth,  which  appears  in 
children,  any  proof  that  they  are  free  from  depravity. 
They  may  speak  the  truth,  because  it  is  the  way  to  ob- 
tain the  gratification  of  their  desires.  When  they  are 
hungry,  they  may  speak  the  truth,  and  say,  we  are  hun- 
gry, because  it  is  the  way  to  get  food.  Whatever  may 
be  their  wants,  they  may  speak  the  truth,  and  tell  their 
iriends  what  their  wants  are,  because  this  is  the  way  to 
get  a  supply.  We  well  know  that  honesty  is  the  best 
policy  ;  and  children  may  begin  to  learn  this,  while  very 
young.  But  does  speaking  the  truth  from  any  such 
principle  prove  that  they  are  not  depraved  ?  Dr.  Ware 
supplies  us  with  a  very  satisfactory  answer.  "  The  great- 
est liar,"  he  says,  "does  by  the  constitution  of  his  nature, 
doubtless  speak  many  truths  to  every  lie  he  utters." 
He  is  the  greatest  liar;  and  this  surely  is  saying  that  he 
is  the  subject  of  no  ordinary  degree  of  depravity.  But 
in  perfect  consistency  with  all  this  depravity,  he  finds 
motives  to  speak  many  truths  to  one  lie.  Since  then 
there  are  so  many  motives  to  speak  the  truth  in  those 
who  are  morally  depraved,  and  since  a  prevailing  habit 
of  speaking  the  truth  does,  in  the  case  mentioned  by 
Dr.  Ware,  consist  with  that  shocking  degree  of  deprav- 
ity which  is  found  in  the  greatest  liar;  it  is  perfectly 
plain,  that  merely  speaking  the  truth  can  never  prove 
either  men  or  children  to  be  free  from  depravity. 

"  How  early,"  says  Dr.  Ware,  "  does  the  infant  dis- 
cover affection,  attachment,  and  gratitude  to  those  from 
Avhom  it  receives  kindness!"  If,  as  he  thinks,  this  is  an 
evidence  of  freedom  from  sin   in  children,  why  not  in 


23 

men  ?  But  on  this  point,  he  who  knew  what  was  in  man, 
guards  us  against  mistake.  "If  ye  love  them  who  love 
you,  what  reward  have  ye  ?  Do  not  even  the  publicans 
the  same  ?" 

The  amiable  characteristics  of  early  life  are  made 
so  important  a  topic  of  argument  by  Dr.  Ware,  that  it 
may  be  proper  to  follow  him  a  little  farther.  What  he 
says  p.  28,  as  to  the  original  freedom  of  children  from 
cruelty,  their  tenderness,  compassion  &c.  is,  I  doubt  not, 
generally  correct.  I  allow,  that  children  do  not  natural- 
ly take  pleasure  in  giving  pain  to  insects,  or  any  other 
sensitive  beings,  and  that,  when  they  do  mischief,  it  is 
not  generally  from  the  love  of  mischief,  as  the  real  mo- 
tive, but  from  the  love  of  action  and  strong  excitement, 
or  some  other  similar  cause.  But  what  does  this  prove, 
as  to  the  existence  of  depravity  ?  Men,  as  well  as  chil- 
dren, and  men  who  live  without  God,  who  disregard  the 
obligations  of  his  law,  and  exhibit  a  character  at  the  ut- 
most distance  from  holiness,  may  still  have  no  disposition 
to  cruelty,  but  may  be  tender,  sympathetic,  pitiful.  But 
can  this  prove  that  they  are  free  from  moral  depravity? 
No  more  than  speaking  the  truth  can  prove  "  the  greatest 
liar"  free  from  depravity. 

In  regard  to  all  the  particulars  above  noticed,  the 
plain  truth  is,  that,  in  order  to  qualify  human  beings  for 
the  state  in  which  they  are  destined  to  live,  and  for  the 
relations  they  are  to  sustain,  God  has  given  them  a  va- 
riety of  natural  appetites  and  natural  affections,  which, 
though  capable  of  being  made  auxiliaries  to  virtue,  and 
conducive  to  the  ends  of  benevolence,  have  not,  in  them- 
selves, any  thing  of  the  nature  of  holiness,  but  are  per- 
fectly distinct  from  it,  and  may  be  cultivated  to  a  high 
degree  in  those,  in  whom  moral  principle  is  prostrated. 
The  infidel  may  have  them  all  ;    and   so   may  the    man 


24 

who  idolizes  the  world  ;  and  so  may  the  profane  swear- 
er, the  duellist,  and  the  ambitious  conqueror.  This  is 
the  case  with  all  the  lovely  characteristics  of  early  life, 
which  Dr.  Ware  makes  so  prominent  in  his  delineation 
of  human  nature.  Be  it  so  that  his  delineation  is 
just, — that  human  beings  in  early  life,  and  in  many  instan- 
ces afterwards,  do  possess  all  the  sweetness  of  the  nat- 
ural affections.  It  does  not  follow  from  this,  that  either 
children  or  men  are  free  from  moral  depravity.  The 
natural  affections,  which  in  a  considerable  degree  show 
themselves  even  in  irrational  animals,  are  indeed  not  on- 
ly blameless,  but  amiable  and  useful ;  and  forever  to  be 
admired  is  the  wisdom  and  the  goodness  of  that  Being, 
who  has  endued  us  with  them.  And  any  one  who  should 
assert  these  natural  affections  to  be  any  part  of  human 
depravity,  or  any  indication  of  a  depraved  nature,  would 
mistake  as  grossly,  as  if  he  should  assert  a  man's  senses 
or  limbs  to  be  a  part  of  depravity.  But  no  less  obvious 
is  the  mistake  of  the  man,  who  considers  them  as  a  proof 
of  freedom  from  depravity.  They  prove  neither  the 
one  nor  the  other.  Their  existence  and  operation,  sim- 
ply considered,  are  never  made  the  subject  of  divine 
legislation  ;  though  the  divine  law  directs  how  they  are 
to  be  used,  and  to  what  ends  they  are  to  be  made  sub- 
servient. It  is  only  in  this  last  view,  that  they  assume  a 
moral  aspect. 

The  conclusion,  to  which  I  wish  to  conduct  my  rea- 
ders on  this  subject,  results  directly,  it  will  be  observed, 
from  a  matter  of  fact,  with  which  we  are  familiarly  ac- 
quainted. We  know  by  experience  and  observation, 
that  the  natural  affections,  sympathies  and  instincts  of 
man  really  exist  and  are  active  in  those  who  are  morally 
depraved.  And  although  Scripture  and  observation 
unite  in  teaching,  that  there  are  some  forms  or  degrees 


25 

of  moral  evil,  which  generally  destroy  natural  affection ; 
it  is  obvious  that  other  forms  and  degrees  of  it  do  not. 
From  the  actual  appearances  of  human  nature,  no  one 
could  ever  suppose,  that  the  amiable  qualities  which 
have  been  mentioned  as  belonging  to  men,  whether  old 
or  young,  have  any  necessary  connexion  with  moral 
character.  And  certainly  no  one  can  suppose  this,  who 
makes  the  divine  law  the  standard  of  moral  character. 
What  is  called  natural  affection  neither  constitutes  that 
which  the  law  requires,  nor  shows  the  absence  of  that 
which  it  forbids. 

I  have  dwelt  so  long  upon  this  particular  point,  be- 
cause it  is  in  reality  of  great  consequence,  and  because 
it  is  one  which  has  occasioned,  and  is  still  likely  to  occa- 
sion a  variety  of  mistakes,  both  theoretic  and  practi- 
cal. 

Dr.  Ware  remarks,  p.  27,  that  children  are  general- 
ly simple  and  unsuspicious,  "  until  the  disposition  and 
tendency  of  nature  has  been  changed  by  education,  ex- 
ample, and  circumstances."  Now  I  very  much  doubt 
whether  the  possession  of  a  character  opposite  to  the 
simplicity  and  unsuspiciousness  of  children,  implies  any 
essential  "  change  in  the  disposition  or  tendency  of  na- 
ture." Because  it  is  easy  enough  to  account  for  it,  that 
a  child  or  youth,  who  is  now  simple  and  unsuspicious, 
because  he  has  not  been  versed  in  the  subtle  and  impos- 
ing arts  of  life,  and  has  never  been  in  circumstances  which 
have  tempted  him  to  learn  those  arts,  and  so  has  never 
had  the  latent  properties  of  his  own  nature  brought  in- 
to action,  or  been  exposed  to  suffering  from  the  deceit 
and  wickedness  of  others,  should  afterwards  become 
artful  and  false  in  his  practices,  and  suspicious  in  his 
temper,  without  any  radical  change.  The  natural  fac- 
ulties and  dispositions  of  the  mind  admit   of  an  endless 


26 

variety  of  modifications.  Difference  of  animal  tempera- 
ment and  of  external  circumstances  may  originate  innu- 
merable differences  in  men's  visible  conduct,  and  in  the 
aspect  of  their  character,  while  their  intellectual  facul- 
ties and  moral  dispositions  are  substantially  alike. 

Secondly.  Dr.  Ware  attempts  to  prove  his  doctrine 
respecting  human  nature  by  the  following  argument ;  p. 
26.  "  How  universally  is  the  infant  an  object  of  inter- 
est to  those  about  it !  Would  it  be  so,  if  it  manifested 
such  tokens,  as  the  Orthodox  doctrine  of  depravity  sup- 
poses, of  a  disposition  and  tendency  wholly  directed  to 
evil,  and  appeared  to  possess  nothing  good,  and  no  ten- 
dencv  to  good?" 

In  replying  to  this  reasoning,  I  would  refer  to  the 
representations,  which  Dr.  Ware  has  repeatedly  made, 
of  the  state  of  infancy.  He  says,  that  men  at  first  are 
not  the  subjects  of  either  moral  good  or  evil,  and  have 
no  disposition  to  the  one  more  than  the  other.  And  he 
puts  the  same  thing  in  a  different  form,  when  he  says, 
p.  41,  "  that  men  by  their  natural  birth  receive  no  mor- 
al character,  and  have  none  before  they  are  born 
again."  Now  take  children  in  the  state  in  which  Dr. 
Ware  here  represents  them  to  be;  i.  e.  before  they 
have  any  moral  character  or  any  inclination  to  good  or 
evil.  According  to  this  representation,  they  really  "  ap- 
pear to  possess  nothing  good,  and  no  tendency  to  good  ;" 
of  course,  if  Dr.  Ware  reasons  correctly,  they  cannot  be 
"  the  objects  of  interest  to  those  about  them." 

But  although  this  conclusion  seems  to  follow  from 
our  Author's  remarks,  taken  together ;  I  am  by  no 
means  convinced  of  its  correctness.  Is  there  nothing  in 
children,  viewed  as  subjects  of  depravity,  which  can  ren- 
der them  objects  of  interest  to  those  about  them  ?  Does 
it  excite  no  interest  in  us,  to  look   upon  those  who  are 


27 

possessed  of  so  many  faculties,  and  so  many  engaging 
characteristics,  which  may  render  them  amiable  and 
usefel  in  human  society  ?  But  there  is  a  subject  of 
higher  interest  still,  which  Dr.  Ware,  at  the  time  of 
writing  p.  26,  seems  wholly  to  have  overlooked.  Little 
children,  though  morally  corrupt,  have  immortal  souls, 
and  are  capable  of  endless  happiness,  or  misery.  And 
beside  this,  they  are  placed  under  a  dispensation  of 
mercy,  and  may  become  children  of  God,  and  heirs  of 
his  kingdom,  "  to  the  praise  of  the  glory  of  his  grace." 
Are  not  these  faculties,  these  circumstances,  and  these 
prospects  sufficient  to  render  children  interesting  ob- 
jects ?  Nay,  does  not  the  very  fact,  that  they  are  sub- 
jects of  moral  corruption,  and  exposed  to  a  state  of  irre- 
coverable ruin,  render  them  objects  of  a  still  deeper  in- 
terest ?  Were  not  the  unbelieving  Jews,  and  the  cor- 
rupt, idolatrous  gentiles  interesting  objects  to  an  apos- 
tle ?  Is  it  not  the  very  corruption,  guilt,  and  wretched- 
ness of  unconverted  sinners,  that  excites  such  compassion 
towards  them  in  the  hearts  of  Christians  ?  And  how 
was  it  with  our  blessed  Saviour  ?  Did  not  he  feel  a 
most  sincere,  lively  interest  in  those  who  were  lost,  and 
because  they  were  lost  ?  And  have  not  men,  dead  in 
trespasses  and  sins,  been  objects  of  the  highest  inter- 
est to  their  merciful  Creator  ? 

Thirdly.  Another  argument  of  Dr.  Ware  in  sup- 
port of  his  theory  is  thus  stated.  "The  doctrine  of  de- 
pravity is  repulsive.  The  mind  naturally  revolts  at  it. 
it  seems  at  first,  to  all  men  universally,  to  be  inconsistent 
with  the  divine  perfection.  But  the  first  impression  is 
made  upon  us  by  the  nature  which  God  has  given  us  ; 
and  I  think  we  should  be  slow  to  believe  that  a  nature, 
thus  given  to  all,  is  intended  to  mislead,  and  actually 
does  mislead  all,  on  so  important  a  subject."     p.  22. 


28 

Here  let  it  be  remembered,  that  the  question  in  con- 
troversy between  the  two  parties,  is,  whether  the  first 
moral  feelings  of  man  are  right.  The  argument  of  Dr. 
Ware,  just  stated,  assumes  that  they  are  right,  and  so  is 
another  instance  of  taking  for  granted  the  point  in  de- 
bate. Admit  the  doctrine  of  depravity  to  be  true,  and 
the  fact  of  its  being  repulsive  to  the  natural  feelings  of 
men  is  easily  accounted  for,  from  the  depravity  itself.  It 
is  surely  no  uncommon  thing  for  the  feelings  of  wicked 
men  to  revolt  at  a  faithful  representation  of  the  vileness 
of  their  character,  and  the  greatness  of  their  ill-desert, 
especially  if  that  representation  comes  clothed  with  au- 
thority. Those  feelings,  which  render  the  doctrine  of 
man's  sinfulness  repulsive,  are,  in  our  apprehension,  a 
part  of  his  sinfulness.  If  he  has  a  spirit  of  pride  and 
self-complacency ;  a  doctrine,  which  tends  to  humble 
pride,  and  to  oppose  the  spirit  of  self-complacency,  will 
of  course  be  repulsive.  But  this  is  not  a  solitary  case. 
The  feelings  of  man  revolt  at  the  strict  and  holy  de- 
mands of  the  law.  They  equally  revolt  at  the  high  re- 
quisitions of  the  gospel.  The  feelings  of  a  very  amia- 
ble youth  revolted  at  the  command  of  Christ,  to  "  sell 
all  that  he  had  and  give  to  the  poor."  Was  the  fault  in 
the  command,  or  in  his  feelings  ?  Does  not  the  New  Tes- 
tament account  for  that  disgust  and  enmity  of  man  which 
the  Christian  religion  has  to  encounter,  by  the  fact  that 
he  is  sinful  ?  And  does  not  the  self-righteous,  self-ex- 
alting spirit,  which  lurks  in  man's  heart,  manifestly  tend 
to  give  a  repulsiveness  to  any  doctrine,  or  any  religion, 
which  shows  his  character  despoiled  of  its  moral  beauty, 
degraded  and  disgraced,  and  the  object  of  God's  disap- 
probation ?  How  can  we  for  a  moment  think,  that 
man's  natural  feelings  are  a  proper  test  of  what  is  true, 
and  of  what  is  consistent  with  the   perfections  of  God. 


29 

when  the  Bible  constantly  directs  us  to  a  test,  so  ex- 
ceedingly different  ?  Let  man  be  just  what  he  is  in  his 
natural,  unrenewed  state,  and  it  becomes  an  insepara- 
ble attribute  of  the  religion  of  the  cross,  that  it  is  of- 
fensive,. 

The  circumstance  that  "  the  scheme  of  total  moral 
depravity,  or  of  any  original  bias  to  evil  rather  than 
good,  is  something  different  from  what  we  should  ex- 
pect, and  involves  difficulty,"  is  indeed,  as  Dr.  Ware 
says,  "  a  reason  for  yielding  our  assent  with  caution,  and 
not  without  very  satisfactory  evidence."  In  this  light 
we  have  viewed  it ;  and,  according  to  this  maxim,  we 
have  regulated  our  belief.  The  repulsivcness  of  the 
doctrine  of  depravity,  and  the  natural  reluctance  to  re- 
ceive it,  which  Dr.  Ware  justly  states  to  be  universal, 
and  which  the  Orthodox  have  probably  felt  as  strongly 
as  others,  would  not  surely  have  been  overcome,  as  it 
has  been,  by  evidence  of  ordinary  clearness. 

Fourthly.  Another  argument,  which  Dr.  Ware  uses 
in  support  of  his  scheme,  is  derived  from  "  a  general 
view  of  the  commands,  precepts,  exhortations,  promises 
and  threatenings  of  religion,  and  from  the  whole  history 
of  the  divine  dispensations  to  men."  p.  29. 

We  begin  with  the  three  first.  What  then  do  the 
divine  commands,  precepts,  and  exhortations  show  ? 
They  show  what  mankind  ought  to  be,  not  what  they  are. 
Can  Dr.  Ware  really  think,  what  his  argument  seems  to 
imply,  that  God's  requiring  men  to  be  holy,  proves  that 
they  already  are  holy  ?  His  commands  undoubtedly 
presuppose  that  those,  to  whom  they  are  given,  are 
moral  agents;  of  course,  that  they  possess  all  the  prop- 
erties, which  are  necessary  to  constitute  them  proper 
subjects  of  law.  But  is  freedom  from  moral  corruption 
essential  to  moral  agency  ?  If  so,  then  as  soon  as  men 
5 


30 

become  sinners,  they  cease  to  be  moral  agents.  And  if 
they  cease  to  be  moral  agents,  they  can  be  under  no 
moral  obligation.  How  then  can  God  with  propriety 
require  them  to  repent,  or  in  any  respect  to  obey  his 
law  ?  And  what  shall  we  say  to  those  commands  and 
exhortations  of  the  Bible,  which  require  men  to  be  con- 
verted, to  repent,  to  wash  themselves  from  sin?  As  it 
is  evident  from  the  nature  of  these  commands  and  ex- 
hortations, that  they  cannot  be  enjoined  upon  any  but 
sinners ;  and  as  Dr.  Ware's  argument  implies  that 
sinners  cannot  properly  receive  them ;  it  would 
seem,  they  ought  to  be  blotted  out.  But  if  freedom 
from  sin  is  not  essential  to  moral  ajjencv ;  in  other 
words,  if  every  thing  essential  to  moral  agency  is  found 
in  those  who  are  depraved  ;  and  if  nothing  but  what 
is  essential  to  moral  agency  is  required,  in  order  that 
divine  commands  may  be  given  to  men  ;  then  God's 
giving  such  commands  proves  nothing  one  way  or  the 
other,  as  to  the  existence  of  moral  corruption.  This,  I 
think,  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  argument  of  Dr.  Ware, 
now  under  consideration,  and  to  much  of  the  reasoning 
of  Whitby  and  Taylor  on  the  same  subject. 

Should  any  one  here  introduce  the  distinction  which 
Dr.  Ware  makes  in  another  place,  between  men's  be- 
ing sinners,  and  their  making  themselves  sinners  ;  between 
the  character  born  with  them,  and  that  which  is  acquir- 
ed;  I  should  endeavour  to  make  it  appear,  that  the  dis- 
tinction has  no  concern  with  this  subject.  Sin  is  always 
of  the  same  nature  ;  and  at  whatever  time,  and  in  what- 
ever instances  it  exists,  it  neither  destroys  nor  weakens 
the  obligation  of  the  divine  commands.  And  this  is  the 
same  as  saying,  that  divine  commands  may  be  given  to 
man,  and  may  be  obligatory  upon  him,  notwithstanding 
his  native  depravity.     And  if  so,  then  their  being  actu- 


31 

ally  given  cannot  afford  any  argument  against  native  de- 
pravity. If  sin  exists  in  any  moral  agent,  it  must  have 
had  a  beginning.  But  whether  it  began  at  one  time  or 
another,  is  not  a  circumstance  which  affects  its  nature. 
Suppose  it  began  to  exist  at  a  period  after  the  com- 
mencement of  moral  agency  ;  it  must  have  consisted 
radically  in  a  wrong  disposition  or  affection  of  heart.  If 
an  outward  act  is  sinful,  it  is  sinful  because  it  is  the  expres- 
sion or  effect  of  that  wrong  disposition.  Suppose  now  that 
moral  evil  began  to  exist  at  the  very  commencement  of 
moral  agency  ;  still  it  must  have  consisted  precisely  in 
the  same  thing,  that  is,  in  a  sinful  affection  or  disposition. 
In  this  respect  there  is  no  difference.  Do  you  say  that, 
in  the  last  case,  the  supposed  disposition  or  affection 
could  not  have  been  really  sinful,  because  there  was  no 
preceding  exercise  of  moral  agency  which  could  be  its 
cause?  I  answer,  the  same  is  true,  in  case  moral  evil  is 
supposed  to  begin  at  any  subsequent  period.  It  is  per- 
fectly clear,  that  the  first  sinful  affection  or  disposition 
cannot  be  consequent  upon  any  preceding  act  of  moral 
agency,  as  its  proper  cause,  unless  a  right  act  can  be  the 
cause  of  a  wrong  one  ;  or  unless  there  can  be  a  sinful 
act  before  the  first  sinful  act,  and  that  sinful  act,  which  is 
before  the  first,  can  be  the  cause  of  the  first.  But  it 
surely  needs  no  proof,  that  all  the  exercises  of  moral 
agency,  which  precede  the  first  existence  of  moral  evil, 
must  be  right.  Whether  therefore  the  beginning  of  sin- 
ful  affection  is  coeval  with  the  beginning  of  moral  agencv, 
or  not,  it  cannot  be  derived  from  any  faulty  exercise  of 
moral  agency,  which  preceded.  But  if  by  men's  making 
themselves  sinners,  Dr.  Ware  means  that  they  first  be- 
come sinners  by  an  act  or  exercise  of  theirs  which  pre- 
cedes their  being  sinful,  and  which  of  course  cannot 
be  sinful  itself;   this  is  the  same  as  holding,  that  the  first 


32 

existence  of  sin  in  man  is  derived  from  a  sinless  exercise, 
as  its  cause.  But  who  ever  entertained  so  absurd  an 
opinion  as  this  ? 

But  if  by  men's  making  themselves  sinners,  or  be- 
coming sinners,  Dr.  Ware  only  means  that,  when  they 
begin  to  sin,  they  exercise  their  intellectual  and  moral 
powers,  free  from  coercion  ;  or  that  the  particular  sins 
they  commit  are  voluntary,  and  that  their  sinful  affec- 
tions are,  in  the  most  proper  and  perfect  sense,  their  own  ; 
then  I  say,  this  is  all  true  of  those  who  begin  to  be  sin- 
ners, when  they  first  begin  to  be  moral  agents.  The 
supposition  then  of  sin's  commencing  so  early,  is  no  more 
inconsistent  with  the  commands  of  God,  than  the  suppo- 
sition of  its  commencing  subsequently. 

Let  me  say  also;  that  the  distinction,  above  referred 
to,  between  what  is  native  or  original  in  moral  agents, 
and  what  is  acquired,  is  one  with  which  an  unbiassed 
conscience  is  not  likely  to  give  itself  any  concern.  Sure 
I  am,  that  the  divine  law  has  nothing  to  do  with  it.  The 
law  requires  moral  agents  to  love  God  and  man,  that 
is,  to  be  holy.  If  they  are  destitute  of  the  holy  affec- 
tion required,  whether  at  the  commencement  of  their 
moral  agency,  or  afterwards,  the  law  regards  them  as 
transgressors.  Conscience  regards  them  in  the  same 
light.  If  I  look  into  my  heart,  and  find  that  I  have 
had  a  disposition  or  affection  contrary  to  what  the 
law  requires,  my  conscience  condemns  me  for  it.  If 
I  have  had  that  sinful  disposition  for  a  long  time, 
I  feel  myself  to  be  so  much  the  more  criminal.  And 
if  I  began  to  exercise  that  disposition  as  soon  as  I 
began  to  be  a  moral  agent,  and  have  exercised  it  ever 
since,  I  must  be  regarded  by  myself,  and  by  others, 
as  criminal  in  a  very  high  degree.  Present  before  a 
court  of  justice,  and  before  the  world,  a  man,  who  has 


33 

always  shown  a  lying,  malicious,  thievish  disposition,  from 
the  time  when  he  was  first  capable  of  showing  any  dis- 
position ;  would  he  not  be  regarded  with  deep  abhor- 
rence, and  sentenced  with  unsparing  severity  ?  It  is  evi- 
dent then,  that  common  sense,  not  trammelled  by  false 
reasoning,  unites  with  the  word  of  God  in  condemning 
sinful  affection,  whatever  may  be  the  date  of  its  origin. 
Whether  it  is  the  first  affection  of  moral  agents,  or  has 
its  commencement  afterwards,  it  is  equally  their  own. 
In  either  case,  they  are  free  and  unconstrained  in  exer- 
cising it,  and  possess  every  thing  necessary  to  render 
them  proper  subjects  of  law,  and  capable  of  obedience. 

This  is  a  subject  on  which  most  writers  of  the  Ar- 
minian  school  have,  in  my  apprehension,  fallen  into  a 
variety  of  palpable  mistakes.  And  their  mistakes,  so  far 
as  I  am  able  to  judge,  have  arisen  from  a  wrong  notion 
of  moral  agency  ;  and  their  wrong  notion  of  moral  agen- 
cy, from  their  not  attending,  with  sufficient  care,  to  the 
properties  which  the  mind  actually  exhibits,  and  the 
laws  according  to  which  its  operations  are,  and  always 
must  be  regulated. 

Dr.  Ware  argues  against  the  doctrine  of  native  de- 
pravity, from  "the  promises  and  threatenings  of  religion." 
But  what  do  these  prove  ?  If  God  promises  eternal  life 
to  those  who  obey  the  law,  or  to  those  who  repent,  and 
believe  the  gospel,  and  threatens  destruction  to  those 
who  do  not ;  does  this  prove  that  men  are  by  nature 
free  from  moral  depravity  ?  Are  not  such  promises  and 
threats  just  and  proper  in  relation  to  those  who  are  nat- 
urally depraved?  If  not,  it  must  be  because  natural  de- 
pravity destroys  moral  agency.  But  we  have  seen 
above,  that  if  depravity,  beginning  at  any  time,  is  con- 
sistent with  moral  agency  ;  it  is  so,  if  it  begins  when 
moral  agency  begins.     And  if  depravity,   beginning  so 


34 

early,  may  be  consistent  with  moral  agency  ;  why  may 
it  not  be  consistent  with  "  the  promises  and  threatening^ 
of  religion  ?" 

The  last  particular  to  be  noticed  under  this  head  is, 
"  the  whole  history  of  divine  dispensations  to  men." 
This,  our  Author  thinks,  is  an  argument  against  the  Or- 
thodox doctrine  of  depravity.  I  presume  he  means  the 
history  of  God's  goodness.  The  argument  then  would 
be,  that  God  could  not  be  supposed  to  show  such  kind- 
ness to  men,  if  they  were  naturally  depraved.  But  this  ar- 
gument is  at  once  confuted  by  the  representations  of  Scrip- 
ture. "  God  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and  on 
the  good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  on  the  un- 
just." Christ  represents  this  as  a  prominent  feature  of 
the  divine  administration.  God  is  a  kind  Father,  a  be- 
ing of  infinite  grace,  and  bestows  favours  which  are 
wholly  undeserved.  Plainly  then  the  divine  dispensa- 
tions in  the  present  state,  how  kind  and  beneficial  soev- 
er they  may  be,  cannot  be  urged  as  a  proof,  that  men  are 
"  naturally  innocent  and  pure." 

Fifthly.  Dr.  Ware  alludes  "  to  a  great  number  of  par- 
ticulars," mentioned  in  the  Scriptures,  "  each  of  which 
separately,"  as  he  thinks,  "seems  to  imply  that  mankind 
come  into  the  world  innocent  and  pure,  the  objects  of 
the  complacency  of  their  Creator."  p.  29,  30.  He  in- 
stances only  in  one,  but  that  alone  is,  in  his  opinion,  deci- 
sive of  the  question.  He  refers  to  the  manner  in  which 
little  children  are  spoken  of  by  our  Saviour,  and  by  the 
Apostle.  Matt.  xix.  11.  "  Suffer  little  children  to  come 
unto  me — for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
"These,"  he  says,  "seem  to  have  been  infants,  or  at 
least  very  small  children."  And  he  adds  ;  "  There  is  not 
the  slightest  intimation,  that  these  children  had  become 
the  subjects  of  any  great  moral  change."     Then  comes 


35 

his  conclusion.  "  But  if  they  were  depraved,  destitute 
of  holiness,  &c.  could  our  Saviour  declare  respecting 
them,  "  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God?" 

It  will  doubtless  occur  to  Dr.  Ware,  on  a  review  of 
his  Letters,  that  there  is  an  appearance  of  a  small  in- 
consistency between  this  passage  and  some  others.  He 
tells  us  here,  that  infants,  or  very  small  children,  belong 
to  the  kingdom  of  God,  without  "becoming  the  subjects 
of  any  great  moral  change;"  and  just  below  it  is  impli- 
ed in  his  reasoning,  that  they  arc  not  "  destitute  of  holi- 
ness." But  in  p.  20,  he  describes  man  in  infancy  as 
"  destitute  of  all  positive  holiness."  And  p.  41,  42, 
he  represents  men  by  nature  as  "wanting  that  per- 
sonal holiness  which  is  necessary  to  their  becoming 
members  of  the  kingdom  of  God,"  and  as  need- 
ing "  a  great  moral  change — in  order  to  their  being  fit 
members  of  that,  kingdom."  Here,  infants  are  destitute 
of  personal  holiness,  and  cannot  belong  to  the  kingdom 
of  God  without  a  great  moral  change  ;  but  there,  they 
belong  to  the  kingdom  of  God  as  they  come  into  the 
world,  without  that  moral  change. 

Let  us  now  return  to  the  reasoning  of  Dr.  Ware  from 
Matt.  xix.  14.  The  question,  which  contains  the  point 
of  his  argument,  is  this :  "  If  the  children  who  were 
brought  to  our  Saviour,  were  depraved,  how  could  he 
declare  respecting  them,  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
God?"  I  answer,  the  kingdom  of  God  consists,  and  will 
forever  consist  of  those,  who  have  been  sinners.  All 
the  members  of  that  kingdom  will  unite  in  the  song ; 
"  Unto  him  who  loved  us  and  washed  us  from  our  sins 
in  his  own  blood — be  glory  and  dominion  forever."  So 
that  their  belonging,  and  being  destined  to  belong  to 
Christ's  kingdom,  proves  nothing  as  to  their  native  char- 
acter, except  that  it  was  such  as  to  need  spiritual  wash- 


36 

ing,  or  a  "  great  moral  change."  It  is  a  complaint  of  the 
Pharisees,  that  Christ  receives  sinners  ;  and  he  declares 
it  to  be  the  great  purpose  of  his  coming  into  the  world 
to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost ;  to  call  sinners 
to  repentance,  and  gather  them  into  his  kingdom.  He  is 
a  Saviour  from  sin.  We  have  no  intimation  of  his  beins: 
a  Saviour  of  any  except  sinners.  His  whole  office,  as  a 
Saviour,  relates  to  sinners, — to  sinners  exclusively.  How 
then  does  the  fact,  that  any  persons,  whether  old  or 
young,  belong  to  his  kingdom,  prove  that  they  are  not 
by  nature  depraved,  or  that  they  are  without  sin  ? 
Christ  gave  it  as  a  reason,  why  little  children  should 
come,  or  be  brought  to  him,  that  they  belonged,  or 
would  belong  to  his  kingdom.  Now  this  reason  was  cer- 
tainly as  strong,  if  they  were  depraved  and  sinful,  as  if 
they  were  innocent  and  pure.  Their  being  sinful  placed 
them  upon  the  same  general  footing  with  all  others,  who 
are  invited  to  coma  to  Christ  as  a  Saviour.  If,  because 
they  belonged  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  we  conclude  their 
nature  was  free  from  the  pollution  of  sin,  we  must  make 
the  same  conclusion  respecting  the  nature  of  others  who 
belong  to  that  kingdom.  And  this  perhaps  we  might  do, 
had  not  the  Bible  informed  us  of  whom  the  kingdom 
will  consist. 

Thus  far  I  have  admitted  the  passage  to  signify,  that 
the  children  themselves  belonged  to  the  kingdom  of  God; 
But  Rosenmuller,  and  many  others,  understand  it  as  teach- 
ing, that  the  members  of  Christ's  kingdom  must  be  like 
little  children,  and  so  put  it  in  the  same  class  with  the 
other  texts,  quoted  by  Dr.  Ware  ;  Mark  x.  14.  1  Cor. 
xiv.  29.  "  Unless  ye  be  converted  and  become  as  little 
children,  ye  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God." — 
"  In  malice  be  ye  children." 

We  well  know  it  to  have  been  the  practice   of  the 


37 

Prophets  and  Apostles,  and  especially  of  Christ,  to  make 
use  of  those  objects,  with  which  they  were  familiar,  and 
often  those  which  were  present,  to  illustrate  the    divine 
perfections,  the  character  and  duty  of  men,  and  the  gen- 
eral truths  of  religion  ;   which  is  only  saying,  that  in  their 
religious  instructions  they  used  familiar  metaphors,  simi- 
les, and  comparisons.     And  it  is  an  acknowledged    prin- 
ciple of  figurative  language,  that  the  object,  from  which 
a  metaphor  or  simile  is  drawn,  may  not,  in    its   own   na- 
ture, or    principal  attributes,  truly  and  exactly  resemble 
that  which  is  meant  to  be  illustrated  by  it.     The  resem- 
blance may  respect  any  one  of  the  properties  or  circum- 
stances of  that  object,    without    the    least    reference    to 
others.     In  the   texts  above  quoted,  Christians  are  lik- 
ened to  little  children.     But    can    we   infer  from  this, 
that  children  possess  any  moral  excellence  or  goodness, 
like  that  excellence   or  goodness   of   Christians,  which 
is   meant  to  be  set   forth   by   the   comparison?     Chris- 
tians are  also  likened  to  sheep,  lambs,  doves.     But  do 
sheep,  lambs,  and  doves  possess  moral  excellence  ?  Sup- 
pose   I    should  say,    that    the    texts,    which    represent 
Christians    as  being  like  sheep,  lambs,  and  doves,  "most 
clearly  imply,  until  turned  from  their  obvious  meaning," 
that  those  animals  "  are   objects   of  the   Saviour's  com- 
placency and  affection,"  and  are  "  what  men  become  by 
regeneration."     Would  not  this  argument  be   as  conclu- 
sive, as  Dr.  Ware's  ?     If  he  can  infer  the  moral  purity  of 
little  children,  from  the  circumstance,  that  Christians  are 
compared  to  them  ;   I  can  infer  the  moral  purity  of  lambs 
and  doves  from  the  same  circumstance.     To   make  this 
subject  still  clearer,  look  at  the  texts  which  represent  the 
disciples  of  Christ  as  salt,  light,  and  the   branches  of  a 
vine.    Do  these  texts  imply  that  salt,  light,  or  the  branch- 
'  -  of  a  vine,  have  any  moral    qualities  like  those,  which 
6 


38 

these  metaphors  represent  as  belonging  to  Christ's  dis- 
ciples ?  Look  at  another  case.  Christ  directs  his  Apos- 
tles to  be  not  only  as  harmless  as  doves,  but  wise  as  ser- 
pents. Does  the  direction  imply  that  serpents  have  any 
moral  or  intellectual  qualities,  like  what  he  would  see  in 
his  disciples  ?  Even  the  wisdom  of  the  serpent, — what 
is  it  but  a  mischievous  subtilty,  which  we  regard  with 
abhorrence  and  dread,  and  which,  in  its  nature  and  ef- 
fects, is  most  unlike  the  wisdom  from  above  ?  But  there 
is  a  stronger  case.  Christ  described  to  his  disciples  the 
conduct  of  an  unjust  steward,  who,  from  regard  to  his 
own  interest,  altered  his  master's  accounts,  and  wickedly 
released  his  debtors  from  part  of  their  obligations.  This 
conduct  of  the  steward  Christ  held  up,  as  a  proper  ob- 
ject of  imitation  ;  that  is,  he  represented  the  conduct 
which  his  disciples  ought  to  pursue,  as  being  like  the  con- 
duct of  a  steward,  chargeable  with  unjust  and  fraudulent 
practices.  If  it  were  necessary  to  go  any  farther,  I  would 
recite  the  passage,  in  which  God  is  likened  to  an  unjust 
judge,  who,  though  destitute  of  humanity,  was  influenc- 
ed by  the  wearisome  importunity  of  a  poor  widow,  to 
grant  her  the  assistance  she  craved. 

Now  what  is  the  natural  conclusion  from  these,  and 
other  instances  of  metaphors,  similes,  and  comparisons, 
but  this  ;  that,  in  illustrating  the  truths  of  religion,  the 
inspired  writers  lay  hold  on  any  object  in  the  physical, 
animal,  civil,  or  intellectual  world,  or  any  thing  else,  which 
is  suited  to  the  purpose  of  illustration  ;  that  the  partic- 
ular object  from  which  a  metaphor  is  taken,  may  not, 
in  its  nature  or  principal  attributes,  resemble  that 
which  is  to  be  illustrated  by  it  ;  and  that  it  is  sufficient, 
if  there  is  any  one  apparent  attribute,  relation,  or  cir- 
cumstance, which  may  serve  as  a  foundation  for  the  met- 
aphor, though  all  the  other  attributes  of  the  object  are 


39 

such,  that  they  must  be  set  aside,  as  utterly  incompati- 
ble with  the  design  of  the  metaphor.  The  properties 
or  circumstances  of  any  natural  object  may  be  made  use 
of  to  illustrate  things  of  a  moral  nature.  For  example  ; 
wicked  men  are  represented  in  Scripture  as  being  like 
barren  trees,  dogs,  swine,  and  serpents.  Now  from  the 
nature  of  the  discourse,  common  sense  always  determines 
what  is  the  particular  property,  relation,  or  circumstance, 
which  is  the  ground  of  the  comparison ;  as  in  the  instan- 
ces just  mentioned;  we  easily  perceive  what  it  is  in  bar- 
ren trees,  in  dogs,  swine,  and  serpents,  which  is  suited  to 
illustrate  the  character  of  wicked  men.  Who  ever  sup- 
posed that,  because  these  figures  imply  a  likeness  of 
some  sort  between  the  wicked  men  and  the  things  by 
which  they  are  represented,  therefore,  those  things 
have  a  moral  nature  like  the  moral  nature  of  Christians  ? 
There  is  indeed  something  in  barren  trees,  dogs,  swine, 
and  serpents,  which  aptly  sets  forth  the  character  of  the 
wicked  ;  and  this  is  all  that  is  meant  by  the  figures.  So 
in  the  case  above  mentioned,  in  which  Christians  are 
likened  to  sheep  and  doves.  The  mildness  and  harm- 
lessness  of  those  animals  aptly  illustrate  those  proper- 
ties in  Christians,  which  are  expressed  by  the  same  names; 
though  the  former  are  merely  natural  or  animal  prop- 
erties ;  the  latter,  moral,  or  spiritual.  The  same  re- 
marks apply  to  those  texts  which  represent  Christians 
under  the  similitude  of  salt,  light,  and  the  branches  ol  a 
vine.  There  is  something  in  the  useful  qualities  of  salt 
and  light,  to  which  the  useful  character  or  influence  of 
Christians  may  fitly  be  compared  ;  and  there  is  sonic- 
thing  in  the  dependence  of  the  branches  upon  the  vine, 
which  fitly  represents  the  dependence  of  Christians  upon 
their  Saviour.  Nor  is  the  illustration  in  these  cases  any 
the  less  striking  or  just,  because  salt,  light,  and  the  branch- 


40 

es  of  a  vine,  have  only  a  physical  nature,  while  the  char- 
acter of  Christians,  which  is  likened  to  them,  is  moral  or 
spiritual.  Once  more.  Christians  are  represented  as 
pilgrims,  soldiers,  and  conquerors.  But  did  anv  man  ev- 
er interpret  these  figures  as  implying,  that  pilgrims,  sol- 
diers, and  conquerors  are  free  from  moral  evil,  and  re- 
semble Christians  in  moral  purity  ?  These  last  instan- 
ces show  that  there  may  be  something  even  in  depraved 
human  beings,  on  account  of  which  Christians  may  be 
likened  to  them. 

Now  if  such  is  the  principle,  which  must  govern 
us  in  the  interpretation  of  all  figurative  language  ;  how 
utterly  void  of  force  is  the  favourite  argument  of  Dr. 
Ware  from  the  texts  above  recited  ?  Because  it  is 
said  that,  in  order  to  be  Christians  and  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  we  must  become  as  little  children, 
he  argues  that  children  have  a  moral  virtue  or  good- 
ness of  the  same  nature  with  the  holiness  of  Chris- 
tians. Suppose  now  that  our  Saviour  had  taken  a 
lamb,  instead  of  a  child,  and  had  set  the  harmless, 
lovely  creature  in  the  midst  of  his  disciples,  and  told 
them,  they  must  become  like  that  lamb;  would  it 
have  implied  that  the  lamb  had  moral  goodness,  and 
was  "  what  men  become  by  regeneration  ?"  The  plain 
truth  is,  that  the  amiable  natural  qualities,  which  dis- 
tinguish little  children,  and  which,  as  we  have  seen, 
are  perfectly  consistent  with  the  existence  of  depravi- 
ty, are  made  use  of  to  illustrate  the  amiable  moral 
qualities  which  ought  to  belong  to  Christians.  "The 
text  1  Cor.  xiv.  20,  is  to  receive  the  same  construction. 
Christians  are  exhorted  to  show  in  their  conduct  a 
harmlessness  and  kindness  like  that,  which  is  charac- 
teristic of  children.  The  natural  qualities  of  children 
are   made  to    represent    the   moral    virtues    of   Chris- 


41 

tians  ;  precisely  on  the  same  principle,  that  the  kind 
and  tender  care,  which  the  hen  extends  towards  her 
young,  is  made  to  illustrate  the  tender  mercy  of  Christ 
towards  sinners. 

We  have  now  attended  to  the  chief  arguments 
which  Dr.  Ware  has  offered,  as  the  support  of  his 
theory  of  human  nature.  The  reader,  after  a  thorough 
examination,  will  judge  whether  they  are  conclusive, 
and  to  what  they  really  amount. 


CHAPTER  II. 

In  the  foregoing  chapter,  I  have  made  it  appear, 
as  I  think,  that  those  amiable  qualities,  which  are, 
really  characteristic  of  early  life,  and  which  Dr.  Ware 
has  mentioned  as  indications  of  moral  purity,  are  in 
fact  of  such  a  nature,  that  they  may  consist,  and  in 
subsequent  life  often  do  consist  with  depravity,  and 
so  cannot  afford  any  argument  at  all  against  the  com- 
mon Orthodox  doctrine. 

But  why  does  Dr.  Ware,  in  his  attempt  to  show 
what  human  nature  is,  confine  his  attention  to  a  part 
of  those  things  which  are  characteristics  of  early  life  ? 
How  can  he  think  it  just,  to  dwell  upon  those  things 
only,  which  are  amiable  and  attractive,  while  he  gives 
no  weight  to  those  of  a  contrary  character  ?  Why  es- 
pecially, docs  he  make  such  an  effort  to  explain  all 
the  appearances  of  folly  and  corruption  in  the  youthful 
mind  in  such  a  manner,  as  to  give  no  support  to  the 
common  doctrine  of  the  Christian  church  ?  Does  he 
find  in  this  no  evidence  of  being  warped  by  a  favourite 
theory  ?     He  is   "  persuaded,"  as  has  been  noticed  be- 


42 

fore,  "  that  no  man  was  ever  led  by  personal  observa- 
tion and  experience  to  the  thought  of  an  original  corrup- 
tion of  human  nature."  But  how  happens  it  that  he 
has  this  persuasion,  when  the  well  known  fact  is,  that 
sober,  thinking  men  through  the  Christian  world  have 
generally  been  led  by  observation  and  experience,  not 
only  to  think  of  an  original  depravity,  but  to  believe  it? 
I  shall  here  give  the  testimony  of  a  man,  who  had  no 
tinge  of  melancholy  or  superstition,  and  who  was  as  lit- 
tle inclined  to  judge  severely  or  uncandidly  on  this  sub- 
ject, as  any  man  living.  "  I  have  been  employed,"  he 
says,  "  in  the  education  of  children  and  youth  more  than 
thirty  years,  and  have  watched  their  conduct  with  no 
small  attention  and  anxiety.  Yet  among  the  thousands 
of  children,  committed  to  my  care,  1  cannot  say  with 
truth,  that  I  have  seen  one,  whose  native  character  I 
had  any  reason  to  believe  to  be  virtuous  ;  or  whom  I 
could  conscientiously  pronounce  to  be  free  from  the  evil 
attributes  mentioned  above  ;"  that  is,  disobedience,  re- 
venge, selfishness,  &c*  But  I  do  not  give  this  as  the 
opinion  of  a  single  man.  I  hesitate  not  to  say,  that  it 
has  been  the  opinion  of  a  great  majority  of  enlightened 
Christians  in  all  ages  and  countries.  And  mi^ht  not  Dr. 
Ware  have  found  various  passages  of  Scripture  which 
announce  the  very  truth  I  contend  for?  Might  he 
not  have  found  a  man  of  no  less  observation  and 
judgment,  than  Solomon,  declaring  it  as  a  general  truth, 
that,  "  foolishness  is  bound  in  the  heart  of  a  child  ?" 
Might  he  not  have  found  that  David's  experience 
led  him  to  the  thought  of  an  original,  native  de- 
pravity, when  he  made  it  a  part  of  his  humble. confes- 
sion before  God  ;  "  Behold  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity,  and 
in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me  ?"     Might   he  not 

*  Dr.  Dwight's  Theology,  Vol.  2,  p.  28. 


43 

have  found  that  Job's  observation  or  experience  led  him 
to  the  thought  of  original  depravity,  when  he  said, 
"  Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean?"  and, 
"  How  can  he  be  clean  that  is  born  of  a  woman  ?"  And 
might  he  not  have  found  God  himself  declaring,  direct- 
ly, in  his  own  name,  that  "  the  imagination  of  man's 
heart  is  evil  from  his  youth  ?" 

I  have  the  unhappiness  to  differ  entirely  from  Dr. 
Ware  on  this  point,  and  am  persuaded  that  no  man,  who 
is  careful  to  make  the  law  of  God  his  rule  of  judgment, 
can  avoid  the  conclusion  above  expressed.  For  just 
consider  what  are  the  real  characteristics  of  childhood 
and  youth,  in  relation  to  that  law.  I  ask  not  now  what 
are  those  amiable  affections  or  instincts,  which  belong 
to  domestic  and  social  relations  ;  but  what  are  the  mor- 
al characteristics  of  children  ; — not  what  we  should  sup- 
pose they  must  be,  from  the  views  we  have  entertained 
of  God;  but  what  they  are  in  fact.  What  are  the 
real  feelings  and  actions  of  children  in  regard  to  God's 
holy  law  ?  Begin  the  examination  of  childhood  at  an 
early  period.  Begin  at  the  period  when  moral  agency 
begins  ;  and  suppose  moral  agency  begins  earlier  or  lat- 
er, as  you  please  ;  and  inquire  for  the  disposition  which 
children  manifest,  in  respect  to  the  divine  commands. 
Do  they  show  a  heart  to  love  God,  supremely, 
when  they  are  two  or  three  years  old  ?  Is  it  said, 
they  are  not  generally  capable,  at  that  age,  of  having 
any  correct  knowledge  of  God,  or  of  their  duty,  and 
so  are  not  capable  of  loving  him  ?  Take  then  a 
later  period.  Follow  them  to  the  age  of  four,  or  five 
years,  to  six,  or  ten,  till  they  have  been  instructed  in  re- 
ligion, and  are  capable  of  loving  and  worshipping  God. 
Do  they  generally  show  a  disposition  to  love  and  wor- 
ship God  then?     When  they  first  begin,  by  visible  con- 


44 

duct,  to  exhibit  the  temper  of  their  minds,  as  subjects 
of  the  divine  law  ;  do  they  show  signs  of  cheerful,  holy 
obedience  ?  Does  the  observation  of  Christian  parents 
and  ministers  teach  them  any  thing  like  this  ?  Does  not 
their  observation  rather  confirm  the  truth  of  what  the 
scriptures  declare,  as  quoted  above?  Was  there  ever 
a  man,  who  laboured  in  earnest  to  teach  children  the 
things  of  religion,  and  to  induce  them  to  keep  the  divine 
commands,  who  did  not  find  their  inclinations  mighty  ob- 
stacles to  his  success?  If  children  were  uncorrupt  and 
pure,  they  would,  as  soon  as  capable,  show  the  proper 
signs  of  holiness.  Children  who  are  renewed  early  in 
life,  manifest  a  desire  after  God,  hatred  and  dread  of 
sin,  and  delight  in  duty.  But  do  not  children  in  general 
show,  at  every  period  of  childhood,  that  they  have  not 
the  love  of  God  in  them  ;  that  they  dislike  the  duties  of 
religion,  and  choose  the  ways  of  sin  ?  You  may  set  be- 
fore them  the  most  serious  and  tender  considerations, 
and  may  succeed  so  far,  as  in  some  measure  to  gain  their 
attention,  and  rouse  their  conscience.  But  you  will  find 
that  their  heart  has  a  bias  towards  the  pleasures  of  sin, 
which  no  consideration  of  duty  or  of  happiness  can  over- 
come. With  those  who  judge  themselves  by  the  law 
of  God,  is  not  this  a  matter  of  fact,  a  truth  written  as 
with  a  sun-beam  ?  The  earliest  period  of  childhood,  to 
which  their  memory  can  extend,  furnishes  to  their  own 
minds  abundant  evidence  of  a  disinclination  to  the  du- 
ties and  pleasures  of  religion,  and  a  relish  for  the  pleas- 
ures of  sin.  What  is  moral  depravity,  if  this  is  not?  I 
do  not  say  that  depravity,  at  first,  exists  in  the  high- 
est degree,  and  that  children  are  at  once  ripe  for  the 
most  atrocious  deeds.  I  do  not  say  that  children  are 
inclined  to  lie  merely  for  the  sake  of  lying,  without  any 
temptation.     They  may  speak  many  truths  to  one  false- 


45 

hood,   as  "  the   greatest  liars"   may.      But  we   expect 
great  liars  will  speak  falsehood,  when   they  have  occa- 
sion to  do  it.     Their    telling  lies   now   and    then,   when 
they  have  some    bad   ends    to   answer,  may,  as  appears 
from  the   case    which  Dr.  Ware   mentions,  render  them 
highly    criminal.        So      with     children.        They     may 
generally     be     disposed,     in    the     simplicity     of    their 
hearts,    to  speak    the    truth.     But   has   not  every    one 
who  has  had   the   care    of  little   children,  found    them 
inclined   to    lie    when     tempted    to     it  ?     Does    it   not 
require  unremitting  care    and    every  possible    effort,  to 
guard  them  against  the  practice  of  lying,  whenever  they 
think  it  the  way  to   exculpate    themselves,  or  to  secure 
any  favourite  gratification  ?     And  when  a  habit  of  lying 
is  once  formed  in  children,  is  it  not  found  to  be  extreme- 
ly difficult  to  correct  it  ?     The   same  might   be  said  as 
to  other  tendencies  of  the  youthful  mind.      When  every 
thing  goes  smoothly  with  children,  and  all    their  wishes 
are  gratified,  they  may  exhibit  a  disposition  quite  pleas- 
ant and  friendly.     So  may  persons  arrived  at  manhood, 
though  really  possessed  of  a  contrary  disposition.      But 
how  is  it    with  little  children,  when  their    wishes  are 
crossed,  and  when  they  are  subjected  to  suffering  ?  How 
is  it,  when  they  are  flattered,  and  when  they  are  slight- 
ed?   Do  they  not   very   early  show   signs  of  the    same 
temper  of  mind,  which  we  see  exhibited  in  active  life  by 
the  proud,  the  envious,  the  selfish,  the  wrathful,  and  the 
revengeful  ?     In  short,  if  we  find  any  thing  in  mankind 
at  large,  which  furnishes  proof  of  depravity  ;  we  find  it 
in  little  children;  not  indeed  in  the  same  form,  or  degree j 
for   they  are   not  capable  of   this.     But   we  find    what 
is  of  the  same  nature.     And  even  as  to  form  or  degree; 
do  not  the  pride,  the  selfishness,  the  illwill,  the  revenge, 

7 


46 

exhibited  by  little  children,  resemble  the  same  evil  pas- 
sions in  a  man,  as  much  as  their  bodies  or  their  minds 
resemble  his?  They  have  the  understanding,  the 
bodily  strength,  the  features,  and  all  the  attributes 
of  a  man,  though  in  miniature.  And  who  that  watches 
the  character  of  children,  with  the  eye  of  a  Christian 
or  a  philosopher,  can  have  the  least  doubt,  that  they 
possess,  in  a  correspondent  degree,  all  the  moral  attri- 
butes, and  especially  the  moral  corruptions,  which  ap- 
pear a  mong  men  ?  As  soon  as  they  are  capable,  they  show 
these  corruptions  by  intelligible  outward  signs.  And  they 
show  them  in  a  manner  perfectly  agreeable  to  the  state 
and  circumstances  of  childhood.  True,  they  do  not  show 
them  as  soon  as  they  are  born.  Nor  do  they  show  a  ra- 
tional mind,  as  soon  as  they  are  born.  And  yet  who 
ever  doubted  that  children  naturally  possess  a  rational 
mind?  Dr.  Ware  says  that,  "by  their  birth  men 
become  reasonable,  accountable  beings."  But  does 
a  child  actually  show  reason,  as  soon  as  he  is  born  ?  And 
would  Dr.  Ware  consider  a  child  really  accountable,  as 
soon  as  he  is  born  ?  But  reason  and  accountableness 
universally  belong  to  mankind  ;  and  children  begin  early 
to  show  signs  of  being  reasonable  and  accountable  beings, 
and  exhibit  more  and  more  evidence  of  it,  till  they  come 
to  the  understanding  of  a  man.  Now  I  refer  it  to  im- 
partial observers,  to  judge,  whether  children  do  not  ex- 
hibit as  clear  signs  of  moral  evil,  as  they  do  of  reason  ; 
and  whether  they  do  not  begin  to  exhibit  these  signs  as 
early  as  could  be  expected,  allowing  moral  evil  to  be  a 
native  property  of  their  minds?  Although  they  are  by 
nature  depraved  ;  still,  in  order  that  their  depravity 
may  be  visibly  acted  out,  they  must  not  only  be  capable 
of  showing  it  by  pufward  signs,  but  must  have  occasion 
thus  to  show  it.   Now  as  soon  as  children  have  ability  and 


47 

occasion  to  show  their  dispositions,  they  generally  exhib- 
it as  clear  evidence  of  initial  depravity,  as  of  intelligence. 
The  occasion  may  not  be  constant,  nor  very  frequent ; 
any  more  than  the  occasion  tor  actual  falsehood  among 
"the  greatest  liars."  But  this  circumstance  does  not  in 
either  case  affect  the  clearness  of  the  evidence. 


CHAPTER  III. 

Whether  human  depravity  can  in  any  proper  sense 
be  called  native,  innate,  natural,  or  hereditary,  is  a  ques- 
tion, which  seems  to  call  for  more  particular  discussion. 
There  are  many  pretences  against  the  common  doctrine, 
which  ought  to  be  exposed,  and  some  difficulties  attend- 
ing it  which  ought,  if  possible,  to  be  cleared  away.  Dr. 
Ware  allows  that  "  all  men  are  sinners,"  but  says,  they 
are  so  by  habit,  not  by  nature.  All  the  wickedness  of 
man  is,  in  his  view,  perfectly  consistent  with  his  coming 
into  being,  innocent  and  pure.  With  a  view  to  what  he 
and  others  have  advanced  in  opposition  to  the  doctrine 
of  native  depravity,  and  to  present  the  doctrine  to  oth- 
ers precisely  in  the  light  in  which  it  has  presented  itself 
to  my  own  mind,  I  shall  allow  myself  in  the  free  discus, 
sion  which  follows. 

My  first  inquiry  respects  the  proper  meaning  and 
use  of  the  words  and  phrases  commonly  employed  in 
stating  the  doctrine  ;  such  as  native,  innate,  natural,  born 
with  a  depraved  nature,  &c.  To  satisfy  myself  on  this 
subject,  I  take  a  number  of  examples,  in  which  the 
words  and  phrases  are  employed  with  undoubted  pro- 
priety. 


48 

First  example.  Man  has  a  natural  disposition  to  so- 
ciety :  or  he  has  by  nature  a  propensity  to  social  life  ;  or 
he  naturally  possesses  a  social  principle,  or  is  naturally 
formed  for  society.  Such  phrases  are  frequent  ;  nor 
did  I  ever  hear  any  objection  against  them.  But  what 
is  the  fact  which  these  phrases  denote  ?  Do  children 
actually  show  a  social  principle,  as  soon  as  they  are 
born?  Do  they  immediately  give  visible  signs  of  social 
affection,  or  of  that  propensity  which  is  the  foundation 
of  domestic  and  civil  society?  Is  it  not  a  long  time,  be- 
fore they  become  capable  of  expressing  or  exercising  the 
social  principle?  What  then  do  we  mean  by  its  being 
natural  to  man,  or  his  having  it  by  nature,  but  that  man 
is  born  with  such  a  constitution,  or  in  such  a  state,  that  if 
he  is  not  turned  aside  from  the  real  bent  of  his  nature? 
he  certainly  will  be  a  social  being,  or  will  be  actually  in- 
clined to  live  in  society ;  in  other  words,  that  his  being 
deposed  to  choose  society,  rather  than  solitude,  results 
directly  from  the  original  constitution  or  tendency  of  his 
mind?  If  he  choose  a  hermitage,  he  does  violence  to  his 
nature  ;  he  shows  that  there  has  been  some  jar  in  his 
constitution,  some  unnatural  shock  to  his  temper. 

Second  example.  Man  is  naturally  pitiful.  He  is  born 
with  a  principle  of  sympathy,  or  compassion  ;  or  pity  is 
one  of  the  natural,  original  principles  of  the  human 
heart.  These  expressions,  which  are  in  common  use,  do 
not  mean  that  pity  begins  to  show  itself,  or  even  to  be 
distinctly  exercised,  as  soon  as  man  is  born  ;  but  that  it 
uniformly  results  from  his  original  constitution  ;  that  it  is 
the  certain  consequence  of  the  state  in  which  he  is  born, 
or  the  temper  of  mind  which  he  possesses  by  his  birth  ; 
and  that,  in  every  case,  it  will  in  due  time  show  itself, 
unless  his  nature  is  perverted. 

As  a  third  example,   I  would  mention  what  is  com- 


49 

inonly  called  natural  affection  ;  by  which  is  intended  par 
ticularly  the  affection  of  parents  for  their  offspring. 
Man  is  born  with  such  a  nature,  or  has  such  a  tendency 
in  his  constitution,  that,  as  soon  as  the  relation  exists,  he 
feels  the  affection.  However  distant  from  his  birth  the 
time  when  it  is  first  distinctly  felt  and  acted  out ;  it  is 
called  natural,  because  with  such  a  nature  or  constitu- 
tion as  his,  unbroken  and  unperverted,  he  will  certain- 
ly feel  the  affection,  whenever  he  comes  into  the  rela- 
tion. The  affection  implies  no  refinement  upon  his  na- 
ture. It  rises  naturally  or  spontaneously,  like  the  affec- 
tion which  irrational  animals  show  for  their  young. 

Fourth  example.  We  speak  of  a  man  as  having  an 
original  strength  of  mind,  or  liveliness  of  imagination, 
supcriour  to  what  others  possess.  This  might  not 
appear  for  many  years.  But  it  is  at  length  evident, 
that  the  difference  cannot  be  accounted  for  by  difference 
of  culture,  and  so  must  arise  from  difference  of  original 
constitution.  On  this  account  we  call  it  native  superiority. 
We  say,  a  man  was  born  a  king,  or  was  born  a  command- 
er ;  because  uniformly,  from  early  life,  he  showed  marks 
of  an  elevated  character,  or  qualities  which  fitted  him  to 
command.  We  consider  those  qualities  natural,  because 
it  is  plain,  that  they  are  no  more  owing  to  his  educa- 
tion, than  the  features  of  his  countenance  ;  which  may 
perhaps  indicate,  as  clearly  as  the  qualities  of  his  mind, 
his  high  destination.  Of  another  we  say,  that  he  was 
born  an  idiot;  that  he  had  an  original  want  of  under- 
standing, or  a  natural  defect  in  the  structure  of  his  mind  ; 
because  his  idiotism  cannot  be  traced  to  any  calamity 
which  has  befallen  him  since  his  birth,  but  is  manifestly 
owing  to  the  constitution  of  mind,  with  which  he  was 
born.     In  this  case,  we  say  his  mental  imbecility   was 


50 

natural  to  him ;  though  there  might  have  been  a  con- 
siderable time  after  his  birth,  before  it  appeared. 

Thus  too  we  say  of  Handel,  that  he  had  a  native  or 
inborn  taste  for  music,  or  that  he  was  born  a  musician  ; 
because  he  showed  that  taste  very  early,  and  no  influ- 
ence of  education  or  example  could  account  for  the  dif- 
ference, which  existed  between  him  and  other  men,  in 
this  respect.  Milton,  we  say,  had  a  native  sublimity  of 
mind  and  fruitfulness  of  invention,  which  qualified  him  to 
be  a  distinguished  poet. 

Fifth  example.  We  sometimes  say  of  a  bodily  dis- 
ease, that  it  is  native,  or  that  it  was  born  with  a  man  ;  be- 
cause it  appears  manifestly  to  result  from  the  original  con- 
stitution of  his  body,  though  the  disease  did  not  show  itself 
for  many  years.  It  is  often  said,  a  man  was  born  with  a 
consumptive  constitution,  or  with  a  state  of  body  which 
tended  to  a  consumption;  and  it  is  deemed  a  matter  of 
great  importance  in  the  medical  art,  to  discover  when 
this  is  the  case. 

If  another  example  were  necessary,  I  might  notice 
the  manner  in  which  we  apply  the  words  and  phrases, 
now  under  consideration,  to  irrational  animals  ;  as  when 
we  say,  it  is  natural  for  serpents  to  bite  ;  it  is  the  nature 
of  birds,  to  fly;  of  lions,  to  be  carniverous ;  of  fishes,  to 
swim.  But  the  illustration  has  been  pursued  far  enough 
to  answer  the  purpose  intended. 

I  would  not  however  proceed,  without  inquiring  a 
little  into  the  use  of  the  word  hereditary,  in  relation  to 
these  subjects.  It  is  obviously  suitable  to  speak  of  par- 
ticular properties  of  mind  and  of  body  as  hereditary,  when 
they  can  most  satisfactorily  be  accounted  for  on  the  com- 
mon principle  of  a  likeness  between  parents  and  children; 
There  is  a  general  resemblance  which  a  child  bears  to 
his  parents,  as  belonging  to  the  same  species  5  and  a  par- 


51 

ticular  resemblance  which  he  bears  to  them,  as  individu- 
als. Observation  shows  that,  in  regard  to  the  faculties 
and  dispositions  of  the  mind,  as  well  as  the  structure 
of  the  body,  parents  universally  transmit  to  their  offspring 
a  general  resemblance,  and  frequently,  a  particular,  indi- 
vidual resemblance.  With  respect  to  each  of  these,  what 
is  more  common  than  to  say,  that  children  inherit  it,  or 
derive  it  from  their  parents  ?  Diseases  are  said  to  be 
hereditary  in  certain  families,  where  they  are  observed 
to  descend  from  generation  to  generation,  and  where,  at 
the  same  time,  they  evidently  result  from  something 
originally  belonging  to  the  constitution.  There  is,  for 
example,  an  hereditary  blindness  and  deafness  ;  an  he- 
reditary firmness  or  weakness  of  bodily  constitution ;  an 
hereditary  strength  or  imbecility  of  mind.  A  man  in- 
herits a  slowness  or  quickness  of  imagination,  a  quietness 
or  irritability  of  temper,  &c.  Wherever  there  is  an  ob- 
vious resemblance  between  children  and  their  parents 
with  respect  to  any  properties  of  body  or  mind,  espe- 
cially if  that  resemblance  has  been  the  same  for  many 
generations,  and  is  most  easily  accounted  for  on  the  com- 
mon principle,  that  children  bear  the  likeness  of  their 
parents  ;  we  hesitate  not  to  say,  those  properties  are 
hereditary.  And  some  respectable  writers  have  been 
led  by  the  particular  opinions  they  have  held  on  the 
subject,  to  speak  of  piety  in  the  same  manner.  Southey 
says,  "Talents  of  no  ordinary  kind,  as  well  as  a  devotion- 
al temper,  were  hereditary  in  the  family  of  the  Wesleys." 
I  mention  it  merely  to  show  in  what  sense  the  word  is 
used. 

Let  us  now  bring  this  train  of  remarks  to  bear  di- 
rectly upon  the  subject  of  investigation.  Here  we  are 
to  inquire,  whether  the  circumstances,  which  lead  us  to 
apply  the  words  natural,  native,  innate,  and  hereditary,  to 


52 

such  bodily  and  mental  properties,  as  those  above  men- 
tioned, do  in  fact  belong  to  the  moral  depravity  or  sin- 
fulness of  man.  We  should  pursue  this  inquiry  with 
special  care,  because  the  result  must  be  of  great  conse- 
quence in  settling  the  present  controversy. 

I  say  then,  that  moral  depravity  is  a  thing  which  has 
been  found  in  the  human  species  from  generation  to  gen- 
eration. There  never  has  been  a  single  exception  in 
any  age.  Dr.  Ware  mentions  it  as  a  truth  which  no  one 
will  deny,  that  all  men  are  sinners.  This  is  not  a  general, 
but  an  universal  truth.  Every  child  of  Adam  has  sin- 
ned. Moral  depravity  is  as  universal  as  reason,  or  mem- 
ory, or  social  affection,  or  pity,  or  any  of  the  bodily  ap- 
petites. We  can  as  easily  find  a  man  without  any  of 
these,  as  without  sin.  So  far  then  as  the  universality  or 
constant  occurrence  of  the  fact  is  concerned,  there  is  as 
much  propriety  in  saying,  that  moral  depravity  is  natur- 
al to  man,  as  that  the  faculty  of  reason,  or  any  bodily  ap- 
petite is. 

Another  circumstance,  which  justifies  us  in  applying 
the  epithets  innate,  natural  &c.  to  human  depravity,  is, 
that  it  shows  itself  very  early.  We  are  indeed  incapable 
of  looking  into  the  mind  of  an  infant,  and  seeing  the  first 
emotions  of  moral  evil.  It  is  impossible  that  our  mem- 
ory should  go  back  to  what  took  place  in  our  own  mindsf 
during  our  infancy.  Nor  can  we  have  any  definite 
knowledge  of  what  takes  place  in  the  minds  of  others  in 
infancy ;  because  they  are  unable  to  exhibit  those  intel- 
ligible signs,  which  are  to  us  the  only  medium  of  access 
to  the  mind.  But  among  the  earliest  things,  which  our 
memory  can  recal  in  ourselves,  or  which  we  are  able  to 
observe  in  others,  are  the  indications  and  incipient  exer- 
cises of  sinful  affection.  Now  if,  as  far  back  as  our  re- 
collection can  go  in  regard  to  ourselves,  or  our  observa- 


53 

lion  in  regard  to  others,  we  uniformly  find  marks  of  mor- 
al evil  ;  is  it  not  reasonable  to  think  it  may  exist  be- 
fore ?  and  that  we  should  he  perfectly  satisfied  of  its 
earlier  existence,  if  we  could,  in  any  way,  trace  back  to 
an  earlier  period,  the  operations  of  our  own  minds,  or  if 
children  at  an  earlier  period  could,  by  any  intelligible 
signs,  indicate  to  us  the  moral  state  of  their  minds  ?  In 
order  that  any  affection  may  show  itself  by  outward  signs, 
and  especially  that  its  actings  may  be  distinctly  recollect- 
ed, it  must  have  acquired  a  certain  degree  of  strength. 
But  is  it  not  according  to  the  law  of  our  nature,  that  the 
affection  should  exist  in  a  lower  degree,  before  that  time  ? 
We  are,  indeed,  unable  to  determine  how  early  deprav- 
ed affection  may  begin  to  operate.  But  considering  how 
early  it  rises  to  such  strength,  as  to  make  itself  visible ; 
and  considering  too  the  gradual  growth  of  every  thing 
in  the  mind ;  can  we  avoid  the  conclusion,  that  it  prob- 
ably exists,  though  in  a  feebler  state,  much  sooner  than 
it  becomes  visible  ?  May  it  not  be  with  our  moral  na- 
ture in  this  respect,  as  it  is  with  the  peculiar  properties 
of  an  eagle,  a  serpent,  or  a  lion,  which  have  always  been 
considered  as  existing  radically  in  the  original  constitution 
of  the  animal,  though  they  begin  to  show  themselves  a 
considerable  time  after?  Be  this,  however,  as  it  may; 
the  actual  appearance  of  moral  evil  in  man  is,  in  com- 
mon cases,  very  early  ;  so  that  as  far  as  the  period  of 
its  first  occurrence  is  concerned,  there  is  a  plain  reason 
for  calling  it  natural,  or  innate. 

Another  circumstance,  distinguishing  those  things 
which  are  properly  called  natural  or  innate,  or  which  we 
say  belong  to  man  from  the  first,  is,  that  they  cannot  be 
traced  to  any  change  in  the  constitution  of  his  nature, 
subsequent  to  his  birth,  and  do  not  presuppose  such  a 
change.     If  idiotism  is  occasioned  by  a  fracture  of  the 

8 


54 

skull,  or  by  the  influence  of  disease,  it  is  not  called  nat- 
ural. But  if  no  such  calamity  has  befallen  a  man,  who 
shows  himself  to  be  without  understanding,  and  his  want 
of  mind  results,  as  a  direct  consequence,  from  his  origin- 
al constitution  ;  in  other  words,  if  he  never  had  any  mind; 
and  if,  with  such  an  original  structure,  it  would  be  im- 
possible that  he  ever  should  have  any  ;  then  his  idiotism 
is  called  natural,  or  he  is  said  to  be  born  an  idiot. 

Now  is  the  moral  depravity  of  man  to  be  traced 
lo  any  calamity  which  has  befallen  him,  or  to  any 
change  which  has  taken  place  in  his  Bioral  consti- 
tution, subsequently  to  his  birth  ?  Does  it  presuppose 
that  there  has  been  such  a  change  ?  If  a  change  takes 
place  adequate  to  account  for  moral  depravity ;  it 
must  be  an  universal  change,  because  it  must  account  for 
the  fact,  that  all  are  sinners.  The  position  then  would 
be,  that,  although  men  are  universally  born  without  any 
disposition  or  tendency  in  their  nature,  which  can  account 
for  the  depravity  they  afterwards  exhibit;  a  change  uni- 
formly takes  place,  which  is  the  spring  of  all  the  moral 
evil  actually  found  in  man.  And  this  change  must  take 
place  very  early,  because  by  the  supposition,  it  must  pre- 
cede the  first  appearance  of  moral  evil.  We  have  then 
before  us  a  most  important  event ;  an  universal  change 
in  the  moral  constitution  of  man  ;  a  change  which  al- 
ways takes  place  very  early  in  childhood,  and  which  sat- 
isfactorily accounts  for  all  the  sins  which  mankind  com- 
mit. Here  it  becomes  a  matter  of  deep  interest  to 
inquire,  what  is  the  cause  of  a  change,  so  momentous  in 
its  nature,  and  in  its  results  ?  Is  that  cause  extraneous  to 
the  human  mind,  or  within  the  mind  ?  If  any  oppo- 
nent should  say,  the  cause  is  extraneous  to  the  mind  ; 
then  I  should  wish  him  to  solve  the  difficulty  of  suppos- 
ing, that  our  moral  nature,  without  any  faulty  conduct  of 


55 

ours,  is  subjected  to  the  calamitous  influence  of  such  a 
cause.  Call  that  which  is  the  cause  of  the  change,  "  ed- 
ucation, example,  and  circumstances,"  as  Dr.  Ware  does, 
p.  27.  It  is  a  cause,  which  is  extraneous  to  the  mind,  and 
over  which,  especially  at  so  early  a  period,  we  can  have 
little  or  no  control.  I  should  wish  Dr.  Ware  to  show,  upon 
his  own  principles,  how  we  can  be  accountable  for  the 
consequences  of  a  change,  produced  in  such  a  manner. 
And  before  leaving  the  subject,  I  should  be  gratified  to 
know,  how  he  would  make  it  appear  consistent,  that  a 
God  of  infinite  goodness  should  expose  his  feeble,  help- 
less creatures,  in  the  very  first  stage  of  their  existence, 
to  the  operation  of  a  cause  so  dreadful. 

But  if  the  cause  of  the  supposed  change  is  within  the 
mind,  it  must  consist  in  something  which  belongs  to  the 
original  constitution  of  the  mind,  or  in  something  which 
is  superinduced  upon  the  mind,  after  its  first  existence. 
If  it  consists  in  something  which  belongs  to  the  original 
constitution  of  the  mind  ;  then  we  are  thrown  back  upon 
the  very  difficulty  which  Dr.  Ware  and  others  think  it 
so  important  to  shun.  But  if  the  cause  of  the  supposed 
change  consists  in  something  which  is.superinduced  upon 
the  mind,  after  its  first  existence  ;  it  is  certainly  proper 
that  we  should  inquire,  what  that  thing  is  ;  what  has  oc- 
casioned it,  or  by  what  means  it  has  been  superinduced 
upon  the  mind.  And  the  answer,  if  there  could  be  an 
answer  to  this  inquiry,  would  only  make  way  for  another 
of  the  same  kind,  and  that  for  another,  and  so  on  indefi- 
nitely. 

These  are  some  of  the  difficulties  which  attend  the 
supposition,  that  the  depravity,  which  man  actually  ex- 
hibits, is  owing  to  any  calamity  which  befals  him,  or  to 
any  change  which  takes  place  in  his  moral  constitution, 
subsequentlv  to  his  birth  :   while  on  the  other  hand,  the 


supposition,  if  admitted,  has  no  advantage  whatever 
over  the  common  supposition,  that  our  actual  wickedness 
is  to  be  traced  back  to  what  is  original  or  native  in  our 
moral  constitution.  It  ^ives  no  convenience  or  clearness 
to  any  philosophical  reasoning,  which  we  may  think  it 
proper  to  pursue  in  relation  to  this  subject ;  as  it  only 
presents  other  causes,  of  the  existence  of  which  we  have 
no  evidence,  and  which,  if  they  were  real,  must  after 
all  be  traced  back  to  the  original  constitution  of  our 
nature.  The  supposition  has  no  advantage  in  regard  to 
our  views  of  the  divine  character,  it  being  every  way  as 
easy  to  reconcile  it  with  the  goodness  of  God,  that  he 
should  give  us  originally  a  constitution,  which  uniformly 
results  in  actual  transgression,  as  that  he  should  expose 
us  to  the  operation  of  causes,  such  as  Dr.  Ware  names, 
p.  27,  which  uniformly  produce  a  change  in  our  nature 
afterwards,  from  purity  to  pollution. 

Against  the  supposition  of  such  a  change  in  our  na- 
ture, there  are  strong  objections.  In  the  first  place; 
so  far  as  our  observation  goes,  all  the  causes  which  op- 
erate upon  the  human  mind,  are  suited  only  to  excite  to 
action,  in  various  ways,  the  powers  and  dispositions  actu- 
ally belonging  to  our  nature,  but  not  to  change  that  nature. 
Secondly;  the  supposition  of  such  a  change  in  our  nature 
is  wholly  wiphilosophical,  because  wholly  unnecessary.  It 
is  as  unphilosophical,  as  to  suppose  a  change  of  nature  in 
order  to  account  for  the  serpent's  venomous  bite,  the 
lion's  fierceness,  or  that  intelligence,  gratitude,  sympathy, 
and  kindness  of  man  Dr.  Ware  considers  as  natural. 
Thirdly.  The  uniformity  of  the  fact  that  men  be- 
come sinners,  denotes  that  it  results  from  the  settled  con- 
stitution of  our  nature,  and  not  from  any  occasional  or 
accidental  cause.  We  reason  thus  respecting  things 
which  uniformly  take  place  in  the  physical   world  ;    and 


57 

why  not  in  the  moral  world  ?  If  our  becoming  sinners  were 
not  owing  to  a  steady  law  or  principle  of  our  nature,  but 
to  some  accidental  cause  ;  we  should,  in  all  reason,  ex- 
pect to  find  some  exceptions.  The  uniform  motions  of 
the  planets  denote  a  uniform  cause,  a  settled  constitution 
of  nature  ;  while  the  occasional  appearance  of  transient 
meteors  denotes  occasional,  transient  causes.  If  there 
Avere  no  settled  constitution  or  law  of  nature  respecting 
the  motion  of  the  planets,  who  would  expect  to  find 
their  motions  constant  and  invariable  ? 

Now  just  as  far  as  there  is  evidence,  that  man's 
actual  sinfulness  is  owing  to  the  original  constitution  of 
his  moral  nature,  and  not  to  any  change  in  his  nature 
experienced  after  his  birth  ;  just  so  far  we  have  reason 
to  consider  his  depravity  natural. 

I  have  yet  another  reason  for  considering  man's  de- 
pravity natural.  I  look  at  other  principles  in  man,  which 
arc  generally  considered  natural,  such  as  the  animal  ap- 
petites, the  love  of  parents  for  their  offspring,  and  also 
that  gratitude,  compassion,  and  kindness,  which  Dr. 
Ware  notices,  "  as  original  attributes  of  human  nature." 
I  find  these  natural  principles  operate  freely  and  sponta- 
neously. It  requires  no  laborious  discipline  to  produce 
them,  no  urgency  of  motives  to  excite  them  to  action. 
When  the  proper  occasion  occurs,  they  arise  unsolicited. 
This  is  a  genera)  mark  of  those  active  principles,  which 
are  allowed  to  be  native  properties  of  man.  The  same 
mark  distinguishes  man's  moral  depravity.  Take  chil- 
dren, as  soon  as  they  are  capable  of  manifesting  what 
they  are  ;  and  let  the  occasion  for  exercising  a  corrupt, 
affection  occur.  How  soon  is  it  excited  ?  How  spon- 
taneously does  the  feeling  of  pride,  ill  will,  and  revenue 
show  itself  in  their  looks  and  actions  ?  It  gets  posses- 
sion of  them  before  they  are  aware.     It  arises  of  its  own 


58 

accord,  before  they  have  considered  whether  it  is  good 
or  bad.  They  first  learn  its  turpitude  from  having  felt 
its  spontaneous  operation  in  their  own  minds.  And  it  is 
the  case  not  only  in  childhood,  but  in  every  period  of 
life,  that  sinful  affections  arise  readily,  as  soon  as  the  oc- 
casion occurs.  So  far  then  as  this  circumstance  has  in- 
fluence, it  is  a  justification  of  the  doctrine  of  native  de- 
pravity. 

But  moral  evil  in  man  has  still  another  mark  of  be- 
ing natural  or  innate  ;  and  that  is,  that  it  is  hard  to  be 
eradicated,  and  resists  powerful  means  of  overcoming  it. 
From  this  we  are  led  to  think,  that  it  has  taken  deep 
root  in  man's  nature,  and  is  not  an  accidental  or  super- 
ficial thing.  The  christian,  who  makes  the  greatest  ef- 
forts to  eradicate  his  depraved  affections,  has,  from  his 
own  experience,  the  clearest  evidence  that  they  adhere 
to  the  very  constitution  of  his  moral  nature  ;  that  they 
make  a  part  of  himself;  and  that  getting  rid  of  them  is 
like  cutting  off  a  hand,  or  plucking  out  an  eye.  He  has 
evidence  too,  that  while  the  heart  is  unrenewed,  or  while 
man  continues  in  his  natural  state,  no  dictate  of  con- 
science, no  motive  or  influence  which  can  be  brought  to 
bear  upon  his  mind,  can  subdue  his  selfishness  and  pride, 
or  induce  him  to  love  God  and  be  humble.  This  fact  is 
as  well  supported  by  experience,  as  any  fact  whatever 
in  the  history  of  the  mind.  And  as  there  is  no  other 
way,  but  experience,  to  prove  it,  on  supposition  of  its  real 
existence  ;  my  last  appeal  for  the  truth  of  the  Orthodox 
doctrine  of  depravity  would  be  to  the  experience  of 
Christians. 

There  is  one  circumstance  of  human  depravity, 
which  justice  requires  me  distinctly  to  notice,  as 
it  seems  utterly  incapable  of  being  reconciled  to  any 
scheme  but  the  Orthodox.     When  we  look  upon  a  new 


59 

born  child,  we  predict,  that  he  will  certainly  be  a  sinner. 
It  is  not  a  conjecture,  nor  a  probability,  but  a  certainty. 
It  is  a  thing  which  no  precautions,  no  circumstances 
whatever  can  prevent.  Let  the  child  be,  from  the  first, 
in  the  hands  of  parents,  nurses,  and  tutors,  as  holv  as 
angels,  so  that  he  shall  never  hear  any  thing  but  words 
of  truth  and  love,  and  never  see  any  thing  but  examples 
of  excellence  ;  still  we  predict  with  certainty,  that  he 
will  not  escape  the  pollution  of  sin;  that  he  will  be  a 
transgressor  of  the  divine  law.  Now  such  a  prediction 
as  this  must  rest  on  some  fixed  principle,  some  certain, 
uniform  cause ;  just  like  our  prediction  respecting  the 
future  developement  which  the  child  will  make  of  any 
bodily  or  mental  power.  We  know  beforehand,  that  if 
the  child  is  free  from  special  defects,  he  will  speak,  and 
walk,  and  love,  and  desire,  and  remember.  This  fore- 
knowledge in  us  rests  upon  the  full  evidence  we  have, 
that  such  is  the  settled  law  or  constitution  of  human  nature. 
It  is  precisely  on  the  same  ground,  that  we  predict  the 
future  transgression  of  the  new-born  infant.  The  pre- 
diction does  not  imply  any  particular  knowledge  of  this 
individual  child,  in  distinction  from  other  children;  for, 
in  the  case  which  I  suppose,  we  only  know  that  he  is 
human.  We  found  our  prediction  solely  upon  the  fact, 
that  the  child  has  human  nature.  We  know  that  it  is 
the  invariable  law  of  his  nature,  that  he  will  be  a  trans- 
gressor. If  there  is  no  such  steady  cause,  no  such  inva- 
riable law,  how  can  we  certainly  conclude  that  this  par- 
ticular child,  born  of  pious,  faithful,  exemplary  parents, 
will  be  a  sinner  ?  May  not  this  child,  if  such  as  Dr. 
Ware  supposes  every  infant  to  be, — "  innocent,  pure, 
free  from  all  disposition  or  tendency  to  sin,"  and  under 
the  salutary  influence  of  the  best  of  parents  ; — may  not 
such  a  child  be  secured  against  moral  evil  ?     Or  if   this 


60 

child  should  not  escape  those  powerful,  calamitous  caus- 
es, which  are  supposed  to  turn  our  nature  from  innocence 
to  guilt ;  how  do  we  know  that  some  other  child  of  Ad- 
am may  not  ?  If  there  is  no  steady,  no  uniformly  oper- 
ating cause,  or  law  of  nature,  leading  to  moral  evil  ;  or 
as  Dr.  Ware  expresses  it,  "if  man  is  by  nature  no  more 
inclined  or  disposed  to  vice  than  to  virtue  ;"  may  we  not 
suppose  that  one  of  a  thousand,  or  at  least  one  of  eight 
hundred  millions,  will  retain  his  original  purity,  and  go 
through  this  short  life  without  becoming  a  sinner?  But 
we  are  forbidden  to  suppose  this  by  that  sober  observa- 
tion, which  teaches  us  the  truth  of  our  Saviours  maxim, 
that  "  no  man  can  gather  grapes  of  thorns,  or  figs  of 
thistles."  The  cause  in  the  former  case  is  indeed  moral; 
in  the  latter,  physical.  But  in  both  cases  the  cause 
which  operates  is  constant ;  and  it  is  the  constancy  or 
uniformity  of  the  cause,  which  enables  us,  in  either  case, 
to  form  a  certain  judgment  respecting  the  constancy  of 
the  effect.  Now  in  any  such  case,  where  do  we  look 
for  the  cause  of  a  constant,  uniform  effect,  but  in  the  na- 
ture or  constitution  of  the  thing  ?  If  this  reasoning  is  sub- 
stantially correct,  what  can  be  more  proper  than  to  call 
the  sinfulness  of  man  natural,  original,  innate  ? 

It  might  here  be  expected,  that  I  should  argue  par- 
ticulary  from  those  texts,  which  teach  directly  that 
our  sinfulness  results  from  the  original  constitution 
of  our  nature  ;  from  various  maxims  and  rules  of  Scrip- 
ture, implying  a  bias  in  human  nature,  which  it  is  the 
object  of  Christian  instruction  and  discipline  to  correct ; 
and  particularly  from  the  representations  of  the  New 
Testament,  that  man  has,  by  his  natural  birth,  that  carnal 
mind  which  is  opposite  to  holiness,  and  on  account  of 
which  he  needs  to  be  born  again.  But  the  arguments 
derived  from   these   sources    were  distinctly  brought  to 


<51 

view  in  my  Letters  to  Unitarians;  and  I  cheerfully 
leave  it  to  the  judgment  of  my  readers,  whether  any 
thine  lias  been  offered  to  diminish  their  force. 

I  have  now  stated  the  leading  considerations,  which 
prove  the  depravity  of  man  to  be  native,  natural,  innate. 
First.  Moral  depravity  is  as  universal  among  men,  as 
reason,  memory,  or  the  bodily  senses,  which  are  allow- 
ed by  all  to  be  natural.  Second.  Depravity  shows  it- 
self very  early ;  as  early  as  could  be  expected,  on  the 
supposition  that  it  is  native  ;  that  is,  at  the  earliest  pe- 
riod of  childhood  to  which  our  memory  can  reach  in  re- 
gard to  ourselves,  or  in  which  children  are  able,  by  in- 
telligible signs,  to  manifest  their  feelings  to  others. 
Third.  The  depravity  of  man  cannot  be  traced  to  any 
calamity  which  befals  him,  or  to  any  change  which  takes 
place  in  his  moral  constitution,  subsequently  to  his  birth. 
Fourth.  Moral  depravity,  like  other  native  affec- 
tions or  principles  of  the  mind,  is  spontaneous  in 
its  operations,  and  hard  to  be  eradicated.  Fifth. 
We  can  predict  concerning  any  human  being,  as  soon 
as  born,  that  if  he  live  long  enough  to  exhibit  the 
character  of  a  moral  agent,  he  will  certainly  be  a  sinner; 
and  this  power  of  prediction  must  depend  on  a  settled, 
uniform  cause,  a  law  of  our  nature. 

These,  with  the  Scripture  arguments  alluded  to,  are, 
to  say  the  least,  as  good  reasons  why  we  should  believe 
moral  depravity  to  be  a  native,  original  attribute  of  man, 
as  any  which  Dr.  Ware  can  have  for  believing  "  kindness? 
gratitude,  and  love  of  truth"  to  be  so.  I  admit  that 
these  and  other  things  of  like  kind,  if  taken  with  proper 
explanations,  are  as  Dr.  Ware  represents  them,  natural 
properties  of  man.  But  let  him  tell  us  why  they  are  to 
be  considered  as  natural ;  and  then  we  may  see  whether 
the  reasons,  which  prove  them  to  be  natural,  are  stron- 
ger (han  those  which   prove  human  depravity  to  be  so. 

0 


62 


CHAPTER  IV. 


The  principal  objections  urged  against  the  doctrine, 
which  I  attempted  to  defend  in  the  preceding  chapter, 
and  the  principal  difficulties  in  which  it  is  entangled,  will 
now  be  made  the  subject  of  particular  consideration. 

Notwithstanding  the  universal  prevalence  of  moral 
evil,  and  all  the  arguments  which  have  been  adduced  to 
prove  that  it  is  natural  to  man,  like  those  other  appetites 
and  affections  which  are,  on  both  sides,  regarded  in  this 
light ;  there  are,  it  is  said,  special  reasons  against  con- 
sidering moral  evil  to  be  a  natural  property  of  man ; 
reasons  strong  enough  to  countervail  all  the  arguments 
in  favour  of  the  Orthodox  doctrine.  These  reasons  are,  in 
brief,  that  the  doctrine  of  native  depravity,  is  inconsistent 
with  the  moral  attributes  of  God,  and  inconsistent  with 
moral  agency  in  man.  Objections  like  these  are  ar- 
rayed against  the  common  dontrine  of  native  depravi- 
ty by  Dr.  Taylor,  and  many  other  writers,  and  are  sug- 
gested by  Dr.  Ware  in  several  passages  in  his  Letters. 

Here  I  must  take  the  liberty  to  remark,  as  I  remark- 
ed in  my  Letters  to  Unitarians,  that  the  mode  of  reason- 
ing, introduced  by  those  who  urge  objections  in  this 
manner,  is  altogether  unphilosophical,  and  can  never  be 
relied  upon  either  in  physics,  ethics,  or  theology.  The 
particular  fault  to  which  I  refer  in  their  mode  of  reason- 
ing, is,  that  they  consider  a  difficulty  which  they  are  not 
able  to  solve,  as  sufficient  to  disprove  a  doctrine, 
supported  by  clear  and  conclusive  evidence.  In  the  sci- 
ence of  the  mind,  as  well  as  in  natural  philosophy,  the 
legitimate  object  of  research  is,  as  the  most  approved 
writers  have  abundantly  shown,  to  discover  what  isfact; 


63 

not  to  determine  what  is  possible  or  consistent.  What 
would  be  thought  of  me,  should  I  regulate  my  inquiries 
in  natural  philosophy  by  the  principle  involved  in  the 
mode  of  reasoning  referred  to?  I  start  with  a  full  belief 
of  the  common  doctrine  of  philosophy,  that  all  material 
substances  have  the  power  of  attraction  constantly  oper- 
ating with  regard  to  each  other;  and  I  am  resolved  to 
admit  nothing,  which  seems  to  me  incapable  of  being  re- 
conciled with  this.  If  in  the  progress  of  my  inquiries  I 
should  find  any  thing,  which  seems  to  me  inconsistent 
with  the  grand  principle  of  attraction,  I  am  predeter- 
mined not  receive  it  into  my  creed.  By  and  by  facts  oc- 
cur, which  indicate  that,  in  certain  cases,  material  substan- 
ces have  the  power  of  repulsion.  But  as  I  am  unable  to 
see  how  this  power  can  consist  with  the  other,  I  will  not 
believe  its  existence.  Or  if  I  admit  the  existence  of  re- 
pulsion, I  will  no  longer  admit  attraction.  Am  I  now  a 
disciple  of  Newton  ?  Or  has  my  understanding  gone 
back  to  the  thraldom  of  the  school-men  ?  Govern- 
ing myself  by  the  same  maxim,  I  attempt  to  learn 
the  properties  of  the  magnet.  I  am  not  satisfied  with 
the  simple  inquiry,  what  properties  do  in  fact  belong 
to  it?  What  do  experience  and  observation  show? 
With  this  I  must  join  another  inquiry; — how  can  such 
properties  be  compatible  with  each  other?  And  how 
can  I  admit  two  different  things,  when  I  am  not  able  to 
see  their  consistency  ?  Such  philosophizing  as  this 
would  lead  to  results,  for  which  few  men  would  be  wil- 
l:ng  to  be  responsible. 

But  the  falsity  of  the  mode  of  reasoning,  above  de- 
scribed, is  no  less  obvious,  in  relation  to  the  doctrine  of 
depravity.  The  proper  inquiry  is,  what  is  taught  by 
the  word  of  God,  and  by  the  facts  which  fall  under  our 
observation  ?     I   ought   to  come  to  this  inquiry    with  a 


64 

mind  as  free  from  prepossesion,  as  that  with  which  a 
physician  inquires,  whether  his  patient  exhibits  the  signs 
of  a  consumption.  And  if  I  find  such  proof  that  deprav- 
ity naturally  belongs  to  man,  as  satisfies  me  that  any 
other  properties  of  man  are  natural;  I  have  come  to  the 
end  of  my  inquiry.  So  far  as  my  belief  of  the 
fact  is  concerned,  I  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
question,  how  this  fact  is  consistent  with  the  per- 
fections of  God,  or  with  the  moral  agency  of  man, 
or  with  any  thing  else.  I  say  not  this,  however,  because 
I  have  the  least  reluctance  to  consider  the  question  of 
consistency,  in  its  proper  place  ;  but  to  show  that,  in 
our  reasoning,  the  consideration  of  this  is  to  be  made  entire- 
ly distinct  from  the  consideration  of  the  evidence,  which 
proves  the  fact.  If  I  would  be  either  a  philosopher  or 
a  Christian,  I  must  believe  what  is  clearly  proved  to  be 
fact,  whether  I  am  able  to  reconcile  the  fact  with  other 
things  I  believe,  or  not.  Nor  must  I  in  any  case  suffer 
my  views  of  the  clearness  and  competency  of  the  proof, 
or  my  mode  of  coming  to  the  discovery  of  it,  to  be  in- 
fluenced by  any  difficulty  I  may  feel,  as  to  the  consisten- 
cy of  the  fact  to  be  proved  with  other  facts.  But  I 
wish  it  to  be  remembered  that  I  say  all  this,  not  because 
I  suppose  that  two  facts  or  truths,  which  are  to  be  be- 
lieved, may  be  really  inconsistent  with  each  other  ;  but 
because,  admitting  that  they  are  consistent,  we  may  not 
in  every  case  be  under  advantages  to  discover  how  they 
are  consistent. 

To  come  at  a  still  clearer  view  of  the  error  involv- 
ed in  that  principle  of  reasoning,  against  which  my  ob- 
jections have  been  aimed  ;  suppose  some  philosopher 
should  rise  up  and  say,  that  my  believing  the  power  of 
repulsion  to  exist  in  matter  is  inconsistent  with  my  be- 
lieving the  power  of  attraction;  or  should  charge  me 
with  denying  attraction,   because    I    believe    repulsion- 


05 

And  suppose  this  pretended  inconsistency  of  repulsion 
with  attraction  should  be  perpetually  mentioned,  or 
hinted  at,  as  an  argument  proving  conclusively,  that  mat- 
ter can  have  no  such  property,  as  the  power  of  repul- 
sion. In  reply  to  such  sophistry  I  should  say,  first,  that 
there  is,  in  my  view,  no  inconsistency  at  all  between  these 
two  powers,  and  that,  if  any  man  affirms  there  is  an  inconsist- 
ency, the  burden  of  proof  certainly  lies  upon  him.  Sec- 
ondly. A  man's  being  unable  to  see  the  consistency  of  the 
two  powers  can  be  taken  as  no  part  of  the  proof  of  a 
real  inconsistency.  Thirdly.  The  question,  whether 
there  is  such  a  thing  as  repulsion  in  matter,  must  de- 
pend entirely  on  its  proper  philosophical  evidence,  and 
must  be  discussed  without  any  regard  to  the  alleged  in- 
consistency of  repulsion  with  attraction.  If  repulsion  is 
proved  to  exist  by  clear,  conclusive  evidence ;  I  should 
be  a  child,  and  not  a  philosopher,  to  refuse  it  a  place  in 
my  belief,  because  it  is  difficult  to  reconcile  it  with 
something  else. 

I  entertain  the  same  views  of  the  proper  mode  of 
reasoning  on  the  subject  of  man's  natural  depravity  ;  and 
these  views  I  exhibited  in  my  fourth  Letter,  to  which  I 
beg  leave  particularly  to  refer  the  reader.  After  sev- 
eral remarks^  intended  to  simplify  the  object  of  inquiry, 
I  said ;  "  These  remarks  are  intended  to  show  that  ac- 
cording to  the  just  principles  of  reasoning  in  such  a  case, 
we  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  inquiry,  whether  the 
common  doctrine  of  depravity  can  consist  with  the  moral 
perfection  of  God,  &c.  If  I  say,  this  doctrine  cannot  be 
true,  because  I  cannot  reconcile  it  with  the  goodness  of 
God  ;  it  is  the  same  as  saying,  I  am  an  infallible  judge 5 
and  my  opinion  must  stand,  though  opposed  by  the  de- 
clarations of  Scripture  and  the  evidence  of  facts.  To 
take  such  a  position  would  be  an  effectual  bar  to  convic- 


06 

tion,  and  render  all  reasoning  useless.  If  we  would  reg- 
ulate our  investigations  on  this  subject  by  correct  princi- 
ples, we  must  reject  totally  every  prepossession  against 
the  doctrine  of  depravity,  arising  from  the  consideration 
of  the  divine  perfections,  or  from  any  thing  else,  and  must 
restrict  ourselves  to  this  single  inquiry,  what  is  true  in 
fact  ?  If  the  subject  is  one  on  which  the  Scripture  un- 
dertakes to  decide  ;  the  question  is,  what  saith  the  Scrip- 
ture?— If  when  we  pursue  our  inquiry,  we  find  that  the 
Scripture,  interpreted  without  the  influence  of  any  pre- 
possession, and  according  to  just  rules,  teaches  that  man 
is  by  nature  unholy  ;  this  must  unhesitatingly  be  admit- 
ted, as  a  certain  truth.  That  God  declares  it,  is  proof 
enough. — If  observation  and  experience  teach  the  same 
truth;  we  are  to  admit  it  as  doubly  confirmed.  As  to 
the  goodness  of  God,  we  know  it  from  other  evidence." 

Dr.  Ware  thinks  the  course  I  pursued  in  regard  to 
this  subject  liable  to  objection.  "  This  is  certainly  a 
very  extraordinary  thought,"  he  says,  "  that  in  defending 
his  system  against  an  objection  to  which  it  is  thought 
liable,  he  should  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  very  ob- 
jection itself,  nor  with  the  difficulty  it  involves.  Did  the 
question  relate  to  the  simple  fact,  whether  the  doctrine 
of  depravity,  as  maintained  by  the  Orthodox,  were  a  doc- 
trine of  Scripture  or  not,  its  consistency  or  inconsistency 
with  the  moral  perfections  of  God  would  indeed  make 
no  part  of  the  ground  on  which  the  argument  should 
proceed."     p.  12. 

My  reply  to  this,  and  to  what  stands  connected  with 
it,  is  a  very  easy  one.  The  grand  point  at  issue  was 
and  is,  whether  the  Orthodox  doctrine  of  depravity  is 
true.  I  was  aware  that  Mr.  Channing  and  others  had 
not  made  this  the  grand  point  at  issue,  and  with  a  view 
to  expose  what  I  considered  a  mistake  in  them,  and  to 


67 

simplify  the  object  of  inquiry,  I  made  the  remarks  in  my 
fourth  Letter.  I  represented  that  the  great  inquiry  in 
relation  to  this  subject  ought  to  be  ;  "  Do  the  Scriptures, 
understood  according  to  just  rules  of  interpretation,  teach 
the  doctrine  of  native  depravity  ?"  Now  if  this  were 
really  to  be  made  the  chief  topic  of  inquiry,  Dr.  Ware 
himself  allows,  that  "  the  consistency  or  inconsisten- 
cy of  the  doctrine  with  the  moral  perfections  of  God 
would  indeed  make  no  part  of  the  ground,  on  which  the 
argument  should  proceed."  The  fact  was,  that  it  had 
often  been  mentioned,  as  a  decisive  reason  against  believ- 
ing the  doctrine  of  depravity,  that  it  is  inconsistent  with 
the  moral  perfection  of  God,  If  an  appearance  of  such 
inconsistency  had  been  mentioned  merely  as  a  difficulty 
attending  an  important  Scripture  doctrine  ;  the  case 
would  have  been  different.  But  its  absolute  inconsisten- 
cy with  the  divine  perfections  had  been  urged,  as  con- 
clusively disproving  the  truth  of  the  doctrine.  I  under- 
took to  show  that  such  a  mode  of  reasoning  is  altoo-eth- 
er  unphilosophical,  and  that  it  would  be  seen  to  be  so  in 
other  like  cases.  And  I  now  say  again,  that  what  I 
have  represented  to  be  the  grand  inquiry  is  not  to  be 
shackled  with  any  other  matters.  If  indeed,  after  we 
have  proved  from  legitimate  sources  of  evidence,  that 
man  is  by  nature  depraved,  any  one  choose  to  bring  into 
view  the  difficulty  of  reconciling  the  doctrine  with  the 
divine  perfections;  I  will  be  so  far  from  attempting  to 
evade  the  difficulty,  that  I  will  apply  myself  with  all 
possible  diligence  and  care,  to  solve  it.  And  this  I  shall 
actually  do,  in  some  measure,  before  leaving  the  subject. 
But  after  all,  be  it  remembered,  that,  whether  1  succeed 
in  solving  the  difficulty  or  not,  the  ground  of  my  faith  in 
the  doctrine  is  the  same.  I  believe  it,  because  it  is 
taught  in  the  Scriptures  ;  just  as  the  philosopher  be- 


6li 

lievcs  what  thorough  investigation  shows  to  be  be  tact, 
whether  he  finds  himself  able  to  reconcile  it  with  other 
facts,  or  not. 

But  Dr.  Ware  insists,   p.    12,    13,  that  it   certainly 
does  belong  to  him,   who   would   relieve   the    Orthodox 
system  from  the    imputation  of  being  inconsistent  with 
the   divine  perfections,   to  prove    that   it   is    consistent. 
For  the  sake  of  elucidating  more  fully   the  principle  of 
reasoning  under  consideration,  I  will  allow,  for  the  pres- 
ent, that  it  does  belong  to  me  to  prove  this  consistency. 
And    I    will    give    in    few  words,  the   nature    of  the 
proof  which  I  now  have  to  offer.     Let  then  the  alleged 
inconsistency  appear  ever  so  great,  even  as  great,  and  as 
hard  to  be  removed,  as  Unitarians  suppose  •  1  shall  con- 
sider it  as  valid  evidence  of  a  real  consistency,  if  I  show 
by  proper  arguments,  first,  that  God  possesses  moral  per- 
fection; and  secondly,  that  man  is  by  nature  depraved.      I 
am  speaking  now  of  the  kind  of  proof  that  is  to  be  reli- 
ed upon,  not  attempting  to  exhibit  the  proof  at  full  length. 
Suppose  each  of  the  two  positions,  just  stated,  to  be  sup- 
ported by  suitable  evidence.     I  adduce  the  simple   fact, 
that  both  positions  are  shown   to  be  true,   as    satisfactory 
proof  of  their  real  consistency  with  each  other.     In   many 
cases,  this  may  be  the  only  possible  method  of  proof ;  be- 
cause we  may  not   be  able  to  bring   the  two   things  to- 
gether by  a  direct  comparison,  and  in  that  way  to  show- 
that  they  are  consistent  with  each   other.     This  princi- 
ple is  much  used  in   Geometry.     In  some  cases   where 
we  cannot  compare  two    things  together  so  as  to   prove 
their    agreement   with    each    other   directly,    we  com- 
pare  them    both    with    a    third,  and   by    making    out 
their  agreement  with  that,  we  prove  their  agreement 
with    each    other.     Their    agreement    with   the    third 
is  the  medium  of  proof.     So  in  the  case  under  consider- 


69 

ation.  Even  if  \vc  could  do  nothing,  by  a  direct  compar- 
ison of  the  two  positions,  towards  proving  a  mutual  con- 
sistency ;  the  fact  that  each  of  them  is  shown  by  prop- 
er evidence  to  be  true,  must  be  taken  as  evidence  that 
they  are  consistent.  This  is  the  only  way  in  which  a 
thousand  things  in  physics,  and  in  the  philosophy  of 
the  mind,  can  ever  be  proved  to  be  consistent  with  each 
other;  and  it  is  the  only  way  in  which  men,  who  are 
completely  disentangled  from  the  hypothetical  philoso- 
phy, deem  it  necessary  to  attempt  a  proof. 

But  Dr.  Ware  shows  at  the  end  of  Letter  II,  that  he 
is  of  a  very  different  opinion,  as  to  this  principle  of  rea- 
soning. He  says,  that  1  have  contented  myself  with  endeav- 
ouring to  prove  the  doctrines  of  Orthodoxy,  as  matters  of 
fact,  upon  the  principle,  that  if  1  could  clearly  prove  them 
to  be  doctrines  of  Scriptures,  I  should  not  be  bound  to  show 
how  they  can  be  consistent  with  the  divine  perfections.  He 
signifies  his  disapprobation  of  all  this,  and  declares  that, 
as  I  have  proceeded  thus,  it  is  unnecessary  to  say  any 
thing  more  to  show,  that  the  imputation  of  our  holding  doc- 
trines inconsistent  with  the  divine  perfections  is  not  removed. 
To  this  remarkable  passage  I  request  the  reader  to 
give  some  close  attention.  The  principle  on  which  I  pro- 
ceeded in  my  reasoning,  as  Dr.  Ware  here  observes,  was 
this  ;  that  if  I  could  clearly  prove  our  doctrines  to  be 
matters  of  fact,  and  doctrines  of  Scripture,  1  should  not  be 
bound  to  show,  in  any  other  way,  how  they  can  be  consist- 
ent with  the  divine  perfections.  Now  he  says,  as  I  have 
contented  myself  with  an  attempt  made  according  to 
this  principle,  the  imputation  of  our  holding  opinions  in- 
consistent with  the  divine  perfections  remains  ;  that  is  to 
say  ;  my  having  clearly  proved  our  doctrines  to  be  doc- 
trines of  Scripture,  if  I  had  done  it.  would  not  be  enough 

10 


70 

to  prove  them  consistent  with  the  divine  perfections  ; — 
for  this  is  the  same  as  his  saying,  that  my  having  clearly 
proved  our  doctrines  to  be  doctrines  of  Scripture  would 
not  remove  the  imputation  of  our  holding  doctrines  in- 
consistent with  the  divine  perfections ;  and  this  is  the 
same  as  to  say,  that,  for  aught  we  know,  the  Scriptures 
may  contain  doctrines  inconsistent  with  the  divine  per- 
fections. I  should  be  sorry  to  think,  that  this  is  the 
ground-work  of  Dr.  Ware's  reasoning  on  this  subject. 
But  it  really  is  so,  unless  he  is  so  unfortunate  as  not  to 
express  what  he  intends;  or  unless  I  am  so  unfortunate 
as  to  misinterpret  his  language.  But  truly  I  see  not 
how  I  could  avoid  the  conclusion  above  stated.  For  if 
the  principle  on  which  he  says  I  proceeded,  and  on 
which  I  indeed  meant  to  proceed,  that  if  I  could  clearly 
prove  our  doctrines  to  be  doctrines  of  Scripture,  we 
should  be  free  from  the  imputation  of  holding  doctrines 
inconsistent  with  the  divine  perfections, — if  this  principle 
is  to  be  rejected  ;  it  must  be  because  the  Bible  may 
contain  doctrines  inconsistent  with  those  perfections. 
Only  let  us  agree  in  the  position,  that  the  Bible  teaches 
nothing  really  inconsistent  with  the  divine  perfections  ; 
then,  of  course,  my  proving  the  doctrines  in  question  to 
be  doctrines  of  Scripture  would  be  considered  as  remov- 
ing every  pretence,  that  I  hold  doctrines  inconsistent 
with  those  perfections.  I  know  indeed  that  Dr.  Ware 
did  not  mean  to  admit  that  I  had  proved  our  doctrines  to 
be  taught  in  the  Bible.  But  what  he  says  manifestly 
implies,  that  if  I  had  proved  this,  and  proved  it  clearly, 
and  had  done  no  more,  I  should  still  be  chargeable  with 
holding  doctrines  inconsistent  with  the  perfections  of 
God ;  for  this  was  the  imputation,  which  he  says  would 
not  be  removed. 


71 

As  this  subject  is  of  very  great  consequence  in  the 
regulation  of  our  religious  inquiries  in  general,  and  as 
my  wish  is  to  make  it  perfectly  intelligible  to  every 
reader;  I  beg  leave  to  exhibit  my  views  in  a  varied 
form. 

The  positions  which  I  have  laboured  to  establish,  as 
the  regulating  principles  of  our  reasoning,  and  of  our 
faith,  particularly  on  this  subject,  are  these.  1.  The 
grand  inquiry,  and  in  truth  the  only  inquiry  is,  what 
is  taught  by  the  word  of  God?  2.  Though  the 
Scriptures  contain  doctrines  which  may,  to  some,  have 
an  appearance  of  being  inconsistent  with  the  divine  per- 
fections ;  they  contain  none  which  are  inconsistent  in  re- 
ality. 3.  As  soon  as  any  doctrine  is  clearly  proved  to 
be  a  doctrine  of  Scripture,  it  is,  for  that  reason  alone,  en- 
titled to  our  faith;  and  even  if  we  should  entirely  fail  of 
showing  its  consistency  with  the  divine  perfections,  or 
with  moral  agency,  to  the  satisfaction  of  an  objector  ; 
we  could  not,  on  that  account,  be  justly  charged  with 
holding  a  doctrine  inconsistent  with  the  divine  perfec- 
tions. But  Dr.  Ware's  representation  is,  that  as  the  Or- 
thodox are  charged  with  denying  the  moral  perfection 
of  God,  or  with  holding  doctrines  inconsistent  with  it; 
the  very  point  at  issue  is,  whether  our  doctrines  are  in- 
consistent with  the  divine  perfections  ;  and  that  it  was 
my  business  in  this  controversy,  to  prove  them  to  be  con- 
sistent. For  the  sake  of  clearing  away  this  perplex- 
ity, as  satisfactorily  as  possible,  I  will,  for  the  present, 
admit  these  views  of  Dr.  Ware  to  be  correct,  and  will 
undertake  the  task  of  giving  the  proof  demanded.  But 
I  claim  the  right  of  choosing  my  own  method  of  proof. 
And  for  the  purpose  of  trying  the  principle,  I  do  now 
choose  to  make  use  of  this  method,  and  to  rely  upon  this 
method  alone;  that  is,  to  prove  that  our  doctrines  are  in 


72 

Jact  consistent  with  the  'perfections  of  God,  by  proving  them 
to  be  doctrines  of  his  word.  Will  Dr.  Ware  allow  this 
method  of  proof  to  be  valid,  and  satisfactory  ?  If  so,  he 
must  alter  the  close  of  his  second  Letter.  But  if  not,  I 
ask  why  ?  Let  him  offer  any  reason  whatever,  to  show 
that  this  method  of  proof  would  not  be  valid;  and  then 
see  if  the  reason  offered  does  not  clearly  imply,  that  the 
Scriptures  may  contain  doctrines  inconsistent  with  the 
divine  perfections. 

Should  Dr.  Ware  say,  as  he  has  said,  that  he  by  no 
means  admits  that  I  have  proved  the  doctrines  of  Ortho- 
doxy to  be  doctrines  of  Scripture,  and  so  that  I  have 
made  out  no  such  proof  as  this  of  their  consistency  with 
the  divine  perfections;  I  should  make  this  obvious  reply. 
The  thing  now  under  consideration  is  the  principle  of 
reasoning,  not  the  success  of  it.  The  present  question  is 
not,  whether  I  have  actually  proved  our  doctrines  to  be 
doctrines  of  Scripture  ;  but  whether,  if  I  should  do  this, 
though  I  should  then  stop,  it  would  be  a  sufficient  proof, 
that  our  doctrines  are  consistent  with  the  perfections 
of  God;  or  whether,  after  clearly  proving  them  to  be 
doctrines  of  Scripture,  the  imputation  might  still  lie 
against  me  of  holding  doctrines  inconsistent  with  the  di- 
vine perfections,  because  I  did  not  in  any  other  way, 
show,  nor  attempt  "  to  show,  how  they  can  be  consist- 
ent." 

But  possibly,  after  all  that  has  been  said,  Dr.  Ware's 
real  meaning  may  not  be  what  I  have  understood  from 
his  language  ;  and  he  may  on  reflection,  cheerfully  ac- 
cede to  the  principle  of  reasoning  which  I  have  been  la- 
bouring to  establish.  The  principle  is  this  ;  and  if  the 
word  of  God  is  true,  it  will  stand  forever ;  namely; 
that  clearly  proving  any  doctrines  to  be  doctrines  of 
Scripture,  is,  by  itself,  a  satisfactory  proof  of  their  con- 


73 

sistency  with  the  divine  perfections  ;  that  in  this  contro- 
versy, the  simple  inquiry  should  be,  what  do  the  Scrip- 
tures teach?  and  that  in  pursuing  this  inquiry,  and  in  esti- 
mating the  value  of  evidence  which  bears  upon  it,  we 
ought  not  to  be  influenced  by  any  apprehension,  that  the 
doctrines  in  question  are  inconsistent  with  the  character 
of  God,  nor  by  any  appearance  of  such  inconsistency  ; — 
just  as  we  should  pursue  the  inquiry,  whether  there  has 
in  reality  been  a  general  deluge,  without  any  regard  to 
the  question,  whether  we  are  able  to  show  such  a  fact 
to  be  consistent  with  the  character  of  God.  From  this 
principle  it  would  follow,  that  if  any  man  finds,  in  regard 
to  the  doctrines  of  Orthodoxy,  that  he  has  been  influen- 
ced by  an  appearance  or  apprehension  of  their  inconsis- 
tency with  the  divine  perfections,  and  that  in  this  way 
he  has  been  prepossessed  against  those  doctrines,  and  has 
refused  to  be  convinced  of  their  truth  by  evidence,  which 
would  be  satisfactory  in  other  cases;  it  is  high  time  for 
him  to  inquire,  whether  he  has  not  done  violence  to  the 
principles  of  reasoning,  and  whether  he  is  not  in  danger 
of  wandering  irreclaimably  from  the  path  of  divine  truth. 
He  forgets' that  such  short-sighted  creatures,  as  we  are, 
may,  in  a  thousand  cases,  be  unable  to  see  how  things 
can  be  consistent,  which  really  are  so  ;  and  that  we  may 
think  we  see  an  inconsistency,  when,  if  we  had  a  great- 
er extent  or  clearness  of  vision,  we  might  see  none. 
While  he  rejects  a  doctrine,  which  is  supported  by  such 
evidence  as  is  generally  deemed  sufficient,  because  he  is 
unable  to  see  how  the  doctrine  can  consist  with  some- 
thing else  ;  he  places  a  reliance  upon  the  strength 
of  his  understanding,  to  which  it  is  not  entitled,  and 
opens  the  door  for  a  wide-spreading  skepticism ;  and 
he  does  this  in  relation  to  doctrines,   which   are   of  the 


74 

highest  importance,  and  the  truth  of  which  is  shown  by 
evidence  of  noon-day  clearness. 

Under  the  influence  of  such  mistaken  views,  as  those 
just  alluded  to,  a  philosopher  examines  the  proof  of  a 
general  deluge,  and  finds  it  clear  and  strong.  But  he 
determines  not  to  believe  it,  because  he  cannot  sec  how 
it  could  have  been  consistent  with  the  justice  and  good- 
ness of  God,  to  destroy  a  world  by  a  deluge.  You  tell 
him,  it  is  clearly  taught  in  the  Bible,  which  he  professes 
to  receive  as  the  word  of  God,  and  that  it  ought,  on  that 
account  alone,  to  be  believed,  whatever  difficulties  may 
seem  to  attend  it.  But  he  avers,  with  increasing  warmth 
of  feeling,  that  it  is  totally  inconsistent  with  the  good- 
ness of  God,  who  is  the  Father  of  his  creatures;  "  that 
we  can  make  no  supposition  upon  the  ground  of  which 
we  shall  be  able  to  see  that  it  can  be  consistent  ;"  that 
it  ought  therefore  to  be  rejected;  and  that  the  few 
texts  of  Scripture  which  seem  to  favour  it,  must  be  ex- 
plained in  some  other  way,  so  that  they  may  give  no 
support  to  a  fact,  which  "  certainly  admits  of  no  recon- 
ciliation with  any  notion  we  can  have  of  the  moral  per- 
fection of  the  Author  of  our  being." 

The  same  philosopher  casts  his  eye  over  the  destruc- 
tion of  Sodom  by  fire  from  heaven,  and  of  Jerusalem  by  the 
Roman  army.  His  sensibilities  are  shocked  by  the  idea 
of  such  scenes  of  distress  and  desolation.  That  God 
should  visit  so  great  a  multitude  of  people,  old  and  young, 
including  so  many  thousands  of  harmless  infants,  with 
such  overwhelming  judgments,  seems  totally  irreconcile- 
able  with  his  paternal  character.  Our  philosopher,  who 
feels  for  his  fellow-creatures,  cannot  think,  that  a  Being 
of  infinite  compassion  could  ever  have  taken  pleasure  in 
witnessing  so  awful  an  event,  brought  about  too  by  his 
own  agency.     And  though  the  evidence  from  history  is 


75 

such  as  would  satisfy  him  in  other  cases,  he  thinks 
it  cannot  be  satisfactory  in  this,  as  it  would  involve  us  in 
the  belief  of  a  fact,  so  inconsistent  with  the  moral  per- 
fection of  God.  So  far  as  the  Bible  is  concerned,  instead 
of  openly  rejecting  its  authority,  he  goes  about  to  put 
such  a  sense  upon  it,  as  he  thinks  it  ought  to  have.  He 
claims  the  right  of  proceeding  in  this  way  from  one  sub- 
ject to  another,  and  of  rejecting  or  modifying  any  texts 
of  Scripture,  so  that  they  may  not  oppose  the  notion 
which  he  has  suffered  to  preoccupy  his  mind,  in  regard 
to  the  character  of  God.  He  seems  to  see  that  the  com- 
mon doctrines  of  depravity,  atonement,  election,  regen- 
eration, and  the  endless  punishment  of  the  wicked  are 
incapable  of  being  reconciled  with  the  divine  perfections. 
According  to  his  maxim,  therefore,  these  doctrines  must 
all  be  rejected  ;  and  the  Bible  must  be  so  explain- 
ed, as  to  give  them  no  support. 

Now  the  foundation  of  such  a  philosopher's  reason- 
ing is  just  this  :  He  has  more  confidence  in  his  own  pre- 
conceptions, than  in  the  word  of  God.  While  he  ought 
to  guide  his  reason  by  the  dictates  of  revelation  ;  he  la- 
bours to  conform  the  dictates  of  revelation  to  the  hasty 
judgments  of  reason.  See  how  clearly  and  strongly  the 
Scriptures  assert  the  natural  corruption  of  man.  If  with 
half  the  clearness  and  strength  they  asserted  his  native 
purity,  how  would  Unitarians  glory  in  the  firm  founda- 
tion of  their  faith  ?  But  no  sooner  docs  the  word  of  God 
begin  to  assert  man's  native  depravity,  than  it  has  to  en- 
counter a  strong  preconception,  that  the  doctrine  cannot 
consist  with  God's  moral  perfection,  and  cannot  be  true. 
Our  opponents  think  that  the  Scriptures  do  not  teach 
the  doctrine.  But  would  they  think  so,  were  they  not 
biassed  by  a  preconception  against  the  doctrine  ?  And 
must  it  not  be  evident  even  to  themselves,  that   such  a 


76 

preconception  is  likely  to  prevent  all  fair  and  impartial 
investigation  of  the  evidence  which  supports  the  doc- 
trine ?  How  can  there  be  a  fair  investigation  of  the 
meaning  of  Scripture  by  those,  who  have  prejudged 
what  its  meaning  must,  or  must  not  be  ?  Is  it  not 
obvious,  that  they  judge  differently  in  regard  to 
other  doctrines,  against  which  their  prejudices  are  not 
arrayed  ?  Is  not  evidence  of  inferior  clearness  perfect- 
ly satisfactory  on  a  thousand  other  subjects  ?  But  here, 
according  to  the  maxims  which  govern  our  opponents,  it 
seems  utterly  impossible  they  should  ever  be  convinced. 
Let  the  Scriptures  say  what  they  will  ;  let  them  assert 
the  doctrine  of  native  depravity,  and  the  other  doctrines 
allied  to  it,  in  language  ever  so  plain,  and  in  circumstan- 
ces which  show,  according  to  all  just  rules  of  interpreta- 
tion, what  the  sense  must  be  ;  and  let  it  appear  from 
the  conduct  of  the  writers,  and  from  what  they  exhibit- 
ed of  their  own  feelings,  that  they  did  actually  regard 
these  doctrines,  as  divine  truths  ;  it  still  answers  no  pur- 
pose with  our  opponents.  For  they  meet  all  this  with 
the  argument,  that  these  doctrines  can  never  be  recon- 
ciled with  the  moral  perfections  of  God.  Viewing  the 
doctrines  in  this  light,  and  entertaining  this  strong  pre- 
possession against  them,  they  can  receive  no  result  of 
experience,  and  no  declaration  of  Scripture,  as  conclu- 
sive evidence  of  their  truth.  I  say  then,  that  so  long  as 
they  suffer  that  notion  of  inconsistency  to  occupy  their 
minds,  and  to  control  their  faith  ;  it  is  perfectly  idle  to 
cite  the  Scriptures  as  evidence.  If  Paul  himself  were 
here,  and  should  declare  the  doctrines,  as  we  understand 
them,  to  be  according  to  truth  ;  they  would  even  then 
reject  them.  Just  so  far  as  their  maxim  is  adopted, 
the  authority  of  the  Bible  is  given  up,  and  the  dis- 
cussion proceeds  on  the  ground   of  mere  natural  rea- 


77 

son.  And  even  after  it  has  been  clearly  proved  that 
any  particular  doctrines  are  taught  in  the  Bible  ;  we 
must  still  inquire  at  the  oracle  of  reason,  whether  those 
doctrines  are  worthy  to  be  received. 

I  am  aware  that  presenting  the  reasoning  of  our  op- 
ponents in  this  light  may  be  thought  to  savour  but  little 
of  candour.  But  truly,  1  think  they  will  not  hesitate  to 
acknowledge,  that  so  far  as  the  exercise  of  candour  is 
concerned,  I  can  justify  myself  by  appealing  to  the  stan- 
dard which  they  themselves  have  established.  For  if 
it  is  consistent  with  candour  for  them  to  charge  us  with 
denying  the  moral  perfection  of  God,  or  with  holding- 
sentiments  implying  such  a  denial ;  why  should  I  be 
thought  deficient  in  candour  for  endeavouring,  accord- 
ing to  my  serious  conviction,  to  show,  that  they 
entertain  sentiments,  or  adopt  a  mode  of  reasoning, 
which  involves  the  denial  of  the  truth  and  authority 
of  the  Scriptures  ? 

The  same  remarks  apply  to  the  other  part  of  the 
objection  against  the  evidence  of  native  depravity  ;  name- 
ly ;  that  it  cannot  be  admitted  to  be  conclusive,  because 
the  doctrine  is  inconsistent  with  moral  agency.  But 
without  repeating  these  remarks,  I  will  just  say,  that  it 
is  altogether  as  proper  for  me  to  deny  man's  moral  agen- 
cy on  account  of  its  apparent  inconsistency  with  the  doc- 
trine of  depravity,  as  for  others  to  deny  man's  depravi- 
ty, on  account  of  its  apparent  inconsistency  with  moral 
agency. 

Let  it  not  however  be  supposed,  from  any  of  the 
foregoing  remarks,  that  I  wish  to  discountenance  direct 
and  free  inquiry  respecting  the  consistency  of  our  doc- 
trine of  depravity  with  the  moral  perfection  of  God  ;  or 
that  I  think  there  is  no  other  way  of  meeting  the  ob- 
jection under  consideration,  than  the  one  I  have  thus  far 
11 


73 

pursued.  I  must,  however,  view  this  as  sufficient. 
And  whether  I  succeed  or  not  in  my  attempt  to  show, 
by  another  mode  of  reasoning,  that  the  doctrine  of  de- 
pravity is  reconcileable  with  the  moral  perfection  of 
God  and  the  moral  agency  of  man,  I  shall  consider  the 
doctrine  as  worthy  of  unhesitating  belief,  if  it  has  no 
support  but  this,  which  is  indeed  the  best  support  of  all, 
— that  it  is  taught  in  the  holy  Scriptures. 

Nor  let  it  be  supposed  from  the  foregoing  remarks, 
that  I  apprehend  any  peculiar  difficulty  in  showing  the 
consistency  of  native  depravity  with  the  divine  perfections. 
There  is  certainly  no  contradiction  in  the  terms;  that 
is,  the  proposition  which  affirms  the  native  depravity  of 
man,  does  not,  in  the  terms  of  it,  contain  a  denial  of  the 
perfection  of  God.  The  inconsistency,  if  there  is  any, 
must  be  made  to  appear  by  an  investigation  of  the  sub- 
ject. If  Dr.  Ware  soberly  thinks  that  there  is  an  incon- 
sistency ;  he  ought  not  to  content  himself  with  such  a 
bare  assertion  of  it,  as  is  suited  to  make  an  impression  on 
those,  who  will  not  give  themselves  the  trouble  of  think- 
ing, or  to  excite  prejudice  in  those  who  are  governed  by 
sounds,  and  first  appearances.  It  behoves  him  to  sup- 
port his  charge  of  inconsistency  by  substantial  evidence. 
But  it  cannot  surely  be  considered,  as  having  any  thing 
of  the  nature  of  evidence,  for  him  to  say,  that  we  can  make 
no  supposition  upon  which  we  shall  be  able  to  perceive  the 
consistency  between  natural  depravity  and  the  divine  good- 
ness, or  that  the  doctrine  of  native  depravity  certainly  ad- 
mits of  no  reconciliation  with  any  notion  we  can  have  of 
the  moral  perfection  of  God.  These  are  strong  affirma- 
tions, and  doubtless  sincere  ones,  expressing  the  real  con- 
viction of  the  writer.  But  he  cannot  expect  us  to 
receive  them,  as  arguments.  Should  I  think  it  best 
to  make  affirmations  in  the  same  way,  expressive  of  my 


79 

views  on  this  subject  ;  I  should  say,  in  direct  opposition 
to  what  has  just  been  quoted  from  our  Author,  that  there 
is  a  very  plain  supposition,  upon  which  we  are  able  to 
perceive  the  perfect  consistency  of  native  depravity  and 
divine  goodness ;  and  this  supposition  is,  that  the  exist- 
ence of  man,  with  such  a  nature  or  character  as  we  as- 
cribe to  him,  may,  in  the  administration  of  a  perfect  mor- 
al government,  be  made  ultimately  conducive  to  the  great 
end  of  benevolence,  that  is,  the  happiness  of  the  universe. 
Or  I  should  say  thus;  that  man's  native  depravity  is  not 
in  the  least  inconsistent  with  divine  justice,  if  it  be 
so  that  man,  notwithstanding  his  native  depravity,  nev- 
er sulfers  more  than  what  he  truly  deserves  for  his 
own  personal  sins  ; — not  inconsistent  with  divine  good- 
ness, if  man's  depravity  is  made  an  effectual  means  of 
promoting  the  object,  at  which  goodness  aims ; — and 
not  inconsistent  with  wisdom,  if  the  system,  of  which 
man's  depravity  is  a  part,  is  so  contrived,  that  it  is  suit- 
ed to  promote  the  best  end  in  the  best  manner. 

But  although,  in  this  brief  statement,  I  have  made  a 
supposition,  according  to  which  the  native  depravity  of 
man  must  appear  perfectly  reconcileable  with  God's 
moral  perfections  ;  I  shall  not  stop  here  ;  but  shall  pro- 
ceed, once  for  all,  freely  to  investigate  this  subject,  and 
to  inquire,  whether  there  is  any  force  in  the  objection, 
so  often  and  so  triumphantly  repeated,  that  the  doctrine 
of  native  depravity  is  totally  inconsistent  with  the  moral 
perfection  of  God,  and  can,  on  no  supposition  whatever, 
be  reconciled  with  it. 

What  then  do  my  opponents  mean  by  saying,  that 
any  thing  is  inconsistent  with  the  moral  perfection  of 
God  ?  that  is,  with  his  benevolence,  or  goodness  ?  Most 
obviously  they  must  mean,  that  if  that  doctrine  is  true, 
or  if  that  event  takes  place,  God  cannot  be  good  ;    in 


80 

other  words,  that  he  cannot  have  benevolent  feelings,  or 
he  cannot  pursue  the  end  of  a  benevolent  administration. 
It  is  clear  that  the  end  of  true  benevolence,  whether  in 
feeling  or  in  action,  is  to  do  good,  or  to  promote  real 
happiness.  And  if  the  being  who  possesses  perfect  be- 
nevolence, has  also  an  infinite  understanding,  and  is  ca- 
pable of  comprehending  a  vast  system  of  intelligent  be- 
ings, which  extends  to  eternity  ;  the  object  of  his  benev- 
olence must  be  the  happiness  of  such  a  system — the 
highest  degree  of  happiness  of  which  that  system  is  ca- 
pable, taken  in  its  whole  extent  and  duration.  Now  the 
native  depravity  of  man  is  plainly  consistent  with  the  di- 
vine benevolence,  if  it  is,  on  the  whole,  consistent  with 
the  greatest  good  of  the  intelligent  system.  Do  you  ask 
how  it  can  possibly  be  made  consistent  ?  My  answer  is, 
it  may,  in  one  way  or  another,  be  the  means  of  making 
a  brighter  and  more  diversified  display  of  the  divine 
perfections,  and  thus  of  giving  the  intelligent  creation, 
as  a  whole,  a  higher  knowledge  and  enjoyment  of  God. 
It  may  be  the  means  of  illustrating  more  clearly  the  ex- 
cellence of  the  law  and  government  of  God,  and  of  pro- 
ducing ultimately,  through  his  moral  kingdom,  a  purer  and 
more  ardent  attachment  to  his  character,  and  his  admin- 
istration ;  so  that  his  intelligent  creatures,  by  means  of 
the  instruction  and  discipline  in  this  way  afforded,  may 
be  brought  at  length  to  a  state  of  higher  perfection  and 
enjoyment,  than  they  could  attain  in  any  other  way. 
Through  the  vigilant  wisdom  and  justice  of  civil  rulers, 
such  a  happy  result  of  rebellion  sometimes  appears  in 
human  governments.  And  why  may  it  not  be  so  in  the 
divine  government,  which  is  directed  by  wisdom  and  jus- 
tice infinitely  more  vigilant,  and  controlled  by  power  in- 
finitely more  efficacious,  than  any  human  government? 
If  in  the  ways  here  suggested,  or  in  other  ways,  the  de- 


81 

pravity  of  man  may  be  made  to  subserve  the  end  of  the 
divine  administration;  its  existence  is  plainly  consistent 
with  the  divine  goodness  ;  or,  which  is  the  same  thing, 
it  may  exist,  and  yet  God  show  himself  to  be  infinitely 
good.  The  subject  of  native  depravity  is,  in  this  respect, 
explained  on  the  same  principle  with  that  of  moral  evil 
generally.  If  you  ask,  how  the  existence  of  moral  evil 
can  be  consistent  with  the  moral  perfections  of  God  ; 
you  ask  a  question  of  as  difficult  solution  as  the  one  we 
have  been  considering  ;  and  the  proper  answer  to  it 
must,  in  my  view,  be  the  same. 

But  has  any  thing  ever  taken  place  under  the  divine 
administration,  which  in  any  degree  illustrates  this  sub- 
ject? Are  there  any  facts  which  tend  to  show,  that  the 
solution  I  have  given  of  the  difficulty,  is  conformable  to 
truth,  and  ought  to  be  satisfactory  ? 

In  reply  to  this,  I  refer  the  reader  to  all  the  instances 
recorded  in  the  Scriptures,  and  all  which  have  occurred 
in  the  common  course  of  divine  providence,  in  which  the 
sins  of  men  have  been  made  the  occasion  of  glorv  to 
God,  and  of  good  to  his  kingdom.  These  instances 
press  upon  our  notice  from  every  quarter.  But  I  shall 
content  myself  with  suggesting  one  or  two  of  those  which 
are  most  remarkable.  No  one  will  think  it  strange,  that  I 
should  here  mention  the  case  of  the  Egyptian  king;  which 
I  do,  not  because  it  is  a  case  essentially  different  from 
others,  but  because  the  Scriptures  make  it  a  subject  of 
particular  remark,  and  give  an  explanation  of  it,  which 
fully  confirms  the  general  principle  involved  in  my 
reasoning.  In  a  passage  too  weighty  to  be  over- 
looked, and  in  language  too  plain  to  be  misunder- 
stood, God  himself  expressly  informs  us  of  the  very  pur- 
puse  for  which  he  raised  that  wicked  man  to  the  throne 
of  Egypt.     Exod.  ix.  16.     Was  not   the  purpose  which 


82 

in  that  case  God  had  in  view,  and  which  he  actually  ac- 
complished, a  benevolent  purpose  ?  And  were  not  all 
the  means  he  employed,  consistent  with  his  moral  per- 
fections ?  And  can  any  thing  be  clearer,  than  that  the 
principal  means  employed  was  the  diversified  display 
the  Egyptian  monarch  made  of  the  most  impious  pride, 
and  the  most  unrelenting  hardness  of  heart?  It  is  utter- 
ly in  vain  to  attempt  an  enumeration  of  the  instances, 
more  or  less  remarkable,  in  which  the  sinful  passions  and 
actions  of  man  have  been  made  to  praise  God.  The 
work  of  redemption  exhibits  this  wonderful  subservien- 
cy of  moral  evil  to  a  benevolent  end,  with  the  greatest 
possible  clearness.  All  those  acts  of  God  in  the  salva- 
tion of  men,  which  are  "  to  the  praise  of  the  glory  of  his 
grace,"  and  all  the  songs  of  thanksgiving  among  the 
redeemed  in  heaven,  are  occasioned  by  human  transgres- 
sion. And  a  careful  examination  of  this  subject  will 
show  not  only  the  fact,  that  moral  evil  is  so  overruled 
by  the  divine  hand,  as  to  be  made  actually  subservient 
to  the  end  of  benevolence,  but  something  of  the  manner 
in  which  it  is  done.  I  will  only  add  here,  that  in  regard 
to  this  subserviency  of  evil  to  good,  there  can  be  no  dis- 
tinction between  moral  evil  generally,  and  that  moral 
evil  which  is  native.  For  if  moral  evil,  occurring  at  any 
period  of  man's  life,  may  be  made  to  contribute  to  the 
end  of  a.  benevolent  administration  ;  why  may  not  that 
which  occurs  at  the  earliest  period  ? 

Such,  in  brief,  are  my  views,  as  to  the  actual  consist- 
ency of  man's  native  depravity  with  the  divine  perfections. 
I  turn  now  to  the  objector,  who  thinks  native  depravity 
to  be  inconsistent  with  the  divine  perfections.  Let 
him  tell  me  definitely,  why  it  is  inconsistent.  Because 
man,  from  the  first  of  his  existence  as  a  moral  agent,  is  sin- 
ful, does  God  cease  to  be  good  ?  May  not  God  so  overrule 
the  corruption  of  our  nature,  that,  in  the  final  result  of 


83 

his  administration,  it  shall  be  the  occasion  of  a  brighter 
display  of  his  holiness,  and  an  augmentation  of  hap- 
piness in  his  universal  empire  ?  Cannot  Omnipotence 
bring  good  out  of  evil  in  this  case,  as  well  as  in 
others  ?  How  does  it  appear,  that  the  moral  perfection 
of  God  must  necessarily  preclude  the  existence  of  sin  in 
man,  at  the  commencement  of  his  moral  agency?  Will 
the  objector  say,  that  native  sinfulness,  if  it  should  exist, 
must  of  necessity  be  attributed  to  the  immediate  agency 
of  God,  and  that  this  would  make  him  the  cause  of  moral 
evil  in  a  sense,  obviously  inconsistent  with  his  infinite  ho- 
liness ?  I  would  request  the  objector,  before  adopting 
such  a  conclusion,  to  ailow  himself  time  for  a  little  ^ree 
inquiry. — Does  not  moral  evil  actually  exist  ?  Are  not 
all  men  sinners  ?  If  so,  then  it  must  be  allowed  by  both 
parties,  that  moral  evil  has  a  beginning  in  men.  It  is 
true,  indeed,  that  Unitarians  dilfer  from  us  as  to  the 
time  of  its  beginning.  But  when  we  assert  that  man  is 
a  sinner,  or  begins  to  sin,  as  soon  as  he  is  a  moral  agent, 
we  no  more  attribute  sin  to  the  immediate  agency  of 
God,  than  those  do,  who  assert  that  sin  begins  at  any 
subsequent  period.  Show  me  how  sin  may  begin  to  ex- 
ist at  any  period  of  man's  life,  without  implying  an  agen- 
cy of  God  inconsistent  with  his  holiness  ;  and  I  will  show 
you  how  it  may  begin  to  exist  at  the  earliest  period, 
without  implying  any  such  agency  ?  If  you  say  that  sin, 
when  it  exists  in  mature  age,  is  the  free,  unconstrained 
action  of  a  rational  and  accountable  being,  and  that  all 
its  guilt  is  chargeable  upon  him,  and  not  upon  God ;  1 
say  the  same  respecting  that  sin,  which  we  suppose  be- 
longs to  man  at  his  first  existence.  It  is  the  act  of  a  ra- 
tional, accountable  being ;  an  act  as  free  and  unconstrained 
as  any  which  takes  place  during  his  whole  life  ;  and  none 
the  less  free  and  unconstrained,  because  for  a  time  it 


84 

may  begin  and  end  in  the  affections, — the  circumstances 
of  the  case  not  permitting  it  to  show  itself  outwardly  in 
a  visible  form.  This  is  true  of  a  thousand  sins,  of  which 
men  are  guilty  in  every  period  of  their  life  ;  sins  which 
exist  merely  in  the  affections  of  the  mind,  and  are  visi- 
ble only  to  the  eye  of  conscience,  and  of  God.  Now  I 
think  it  manifest,  that  between  the  affections  found  in  a 
state  of  manhood,  and  those  in  early  childhood,  there  is 
no  difference  as  to  their  nature,  though  there  is  a  vast 
difference  as  to  their  strength.  Nor  can  there  be  any 
difference,  as  to  the  degree  in  which  a  child,  and  a  per- 
son of  mature  age,  is  dependent  on  God  in  the  exercise  of 
his  affections.  From  infancy  to  old  age,  man  is  in  the 
highest  degree  dependent.  He  always  lives,  and  moves, 
and  has  his  being  in  God.  The  first  movements  of  his 
moral  nature,  which  must  of  necessity  be  affections  mere- 
ly, have  precisely  the  same  relation  to  the  divine  agen- 
cy, as  any  moral  affections  afterwards.  If  God  can  cre- 
ate a  being,  who  shall,  at  any  time,  be  the  subject  of 
feelings  and  actions  of  a  moral  nature,  or  who  shall,  at 
any  time,  be  a  free,  accountable  agent  ;  he  can,  if  he 
please,  create  one  who  shall  be  a  free,  moral,  accounta- 
ble agent  from  the  beginning.  Suppose  the  first  moral 
feelings  and  actions  of  such  a  being  to  be  sinful ;  are 
they  not  still  his  own  feelings  and  actions,  for  which  he 
is  justly  accountable  ?  With  regard  to  the  agency  of 
God,  it  is  evident  that  no  difficulty  attends  that  moral 
evil  which  begins  thus  early,  and  is  therefore  called  na- 
tive, more  than  attends  that  which  originates  at  any  sub- 
sequent period.  Or  to  express  it  in  another  form  ;  if 
God  can,  consistently  with  his  holiness,  create  and  pre- 
serve an  intelligent  being,  who  shall  be  a  sinner  at  any 
period  of  his  life  ;  he  can  create  and  preserve  one  who 
shall  be  a  sinner  from  the  beginning.     With  respect  to 


85 

the  perfections  and  the  agency  of  God,  there  appears  no 
difference  between  the  supposition  that  moral  evil  be- 
gins at  the  commencement  of  man's  existence,  and  the 
supposition  that  it  begins  at  a  subsequent  period,  unless 
there  is  some  intrinsic  absurdity  or  difficulty  in  supposing 
it  to  begin  so  early.  If  there  is  any  such  absurdity  or 
difficulty,  it  must  relate  to  the  subject  of  moral  agency. 
It  is  then  important  to  inquire,  whether  the  doctrine  of 
native  depravity  is  inconsistent  with  a  right  view  of  mor- 
al agency.  This  inquiry  will  be  pursued  in  the  next 
chapter. 


CHAPTER  V. 

Is  the  doctrine  of  native  depravity  inconsistent  with 
moral  agency  ? 

It  seems  to  be  frequently  taken  for  granted  by  Dr. 
Ware,  as  well  as  by  Dr.  Taylor,  and  others,  that  man 
becomes  a  moral  agent  in  consequence  of  an  antecedent 
course  of  voluntary  action  ;  and  particularly,  that  he  be- 
comes a  sinner  by  a  course  of  misconduct,  which  precedes 
his  being  a  sinner.  Dr.  Ware  says,  pp.  33,  36,  37,  that 
men  become  sinners  by  yielding  to  temptations- — by  obey- 
ing the  impulse  of  the  passions  and  the  calls  of  appetite, 
in  opposition  to  the  direction  of  reason  and  the  notices 
of  conscience, — by  subjecting  themselves  to  the  dominion 
of  the  inferior  part  of  their  nature, — by  the  abuse  of 
God's  gifts,  &c.  But  does  he  mean  to  say,  that  all  this 
conduct  takes  place,  before  men  become  sinners  ?  Then 
he  means  to  say,  that  they  commit  as  great  sins  before 
they  are  sinners,  as  after.  For  what  worse  can  real  sin- 
ners do,  than  u  yielding  to  temptation — obeying  the  im- 
12 


pulse  of  the  passions  in  opposition  to  reason  and  con- 
Science,  subjecting  themselves  to  the  inferior  part  of  their 
nature,  and  abusing  God's  gifts  ?"  Or  does  Dr.  Ware 
mean  only  to  say,  that  these  are  the  ways  in  which  they 
manifest  and  increase  their  sinfulness?  If  so,  his  mean- 
ing is  doubtless  correct.  It  is  certainly  sin,  for  men  to 
do  the  things  above  mentioned  ;  and  in  the  very  act  of 
doing;  them,  they  are  sinners. 

But  the  question  returns,  whether  native  depravity 
is  inconsistent  with  moral  agency.  There  is  no  way  to 
answer  this  satisfactorily,  but  by  getting  clear  ideas 
of  moral  agency,  as  well  as  of  native  depravity,  and 
then  determining,  by  a  careful  comparison,  whether 
they  are  repugnant  to  each  other.  What  then  is 
moral  agency  ?  Or  to  make  the  question  more  con- 
venient, what  is  a  moral  agent?  Answer.  A  moral 
agent  is  one  who  acts  under  a  moral  law,  and  is  justly 
accountable  for  his  conduct.  Now  we  find  it  to  be  the 
opinion  of  Dr.  Ware,  pp.  21,  41,  that  "  by  their  natural 
birth  men  become  reasonable,  accountable  beings."  This 
is  as  much  as  to  say,  they  become  moral  agents.  And  if 
they  are  moral  agents,  they  are  capable  of  moral  action; 
that  is,  capable  of  holiness  and  sin  ;  as  Dr.  Ware  often 
represents  them  to  be.  But  if  they  are  capable  of  sin, 
there  is  no  absurdity  in  supposing  that  they  may  actual- 
ly be  the  subjects  of  sin  ;  and  that  they  may  be  the  sub- 
jects of  sin,  as  soon  as  they  are  moral  agents.  In  one 
place,  which  I  have  already  noticed,  Dr.  Wrare  says  bold- 
ly$  they  are  so.  In  explaining  the  phrase,  "All  have 
sinned,"  he  says  it  means,  "all  who  are  capable  of  sinning, 
all  as  soon  as  they  are  capable  of  it,  all  as  soon  as  they  are 
moral  agents."  For  the  assistance  which  these  passages 
afford,  I  am  under  particular  obligations  to  Dr.  Ware. 
If  these  statements  of  his  are  correct,  as  I  am  persuaded 


87 

they  are  ;  there  can  be  no  inconsistency  between  native 
depravity  and  moral  agency.  Our  Author  seems  here  to 
rise  to  the  highest  point  of  Orthodoxy  ;  for  he  says,  first, 
that  "  all  who  are  capable  of  sinning, — all  who  are  rnor* 
al  agents,  are  sinners  ;  and  that  they  are  sinners  as  soon 
as  they  are  capable  of  sinning,  or  as  soon  as  they  are 
moral  agents"  And  secondly,  he  says,  that  "  men  are 
reasonable,  accountable  beings,"  that  is,  moral  agents* 
and  of  course  capable  of  sin, — "by  their  natural  birth." 
All,  by  their  natural  birth,  are  moral  agents,  and  as  soon 
as  they  are  moral  agents,  they  are  sinners  ; — moral  agents 
by  nature,  and  sinners  as  soon  as  moral  agents.  To  this 
representation  of  Dr.  Ware  I  fully  accede  ;  nor  do  I 
believe  that  any  man  can  perceive  in  it  the  least  ab- 
surdity or  inconsistency. 

The  great  question  with  many  is,  how  children  can 
be  capable  of  sin  at  so  early  a  stage  of  their  existence, 
as  is  supposed.  But  if  God  has  made  them  moral  agents  ; 
if  from  the  first  he  has  constituted  them  "  reasonable,  ac- 
countable beings;"  or  if  they  are  such  "  by  their  natural 
birth,"  as  Dr.  Ware  expresses  it  ;  are  they  not  of  course 
capable  of  sin  from  the  first  ?  They  must  be  as  really 
capable  of  sin  at  the  commencement  of  their  moral  ex- 
istence,  as  at  any  subsequent  period.  If  the  objector  de- 
nies this,  then  let  him  tell  me  how  it  can  be,  that  men 
become  more  truly  capable  of  sin,  after  they  have  been 
moral  agents  for  some  time,  than  when  they  begin  to  be 
moral  agents.  I  speak  not  here,  as  to  the  degree  of  ca- 
pability, but  the  reality  of  it.  If  at  the  commencement 
of  moral  existence,  men  are  not  as  really  capable  of  sin, 
as  afterwards  ;  it  must  be  because  they  are  not  really 
moral  agents.  And  if  they  are  not  really  moral  agents, 
it  must  be  because  they  have  not  the  properties  which 
s.re  essentia)    to   morn)  agency.     But  Dr.  Ware   asserts 


88 

that  they  have  these    properties   by   nature  ;    so  that  I 
have  no  controversy  with  him  on  this  subject. 

But  if  men,  at  the  beginning  of  their  existence,  are 
not  really  moral  agents  ;  the  present  discussion  has 
nothing  to  do  with  them  at  that  period  ;  for  the  very 
question,  whether  they  are  the  subjects  of  moral  evil, 
manifestly  implies  that  they  are  capable  of  moral  evil. 
I  make  it  no  part  of  my  object  in  this  discussion,  to  de- 
termine precisely  the  time,  when  moral  agency  begins. 
There  are  difficulties  in  the  way  of  such  a  determination, 
which  I  feel  myself  wholly  unable  to  surmount.  My 
position  is,  that  as  soon  as  men  are  moral  agents,  they 
are  sinners.  Dr.  Ware's  limitation  of  the  universal  ex- 
pression, "  all  have  sinned,"  p.  44,  is  undoubtedly  just. 
It  seems  to  me  as  unreasonable  and  absurd  to  say,  that 
human  beings  are  really  sinners  before  they  are  moral 
agents,  as  to  say  that  birds  or  fishes  are  sinners.  Dr. 
Ware's  position  is  mine,  that  men  are  sinners  as  soon  as 
they  are  moral  agents. 

But  I  wish  to  take  a  still  nearer  and  more  particular 
view  of  this  point.  Let  me  say  then,  that  if  men  at  first, 
have  a  low  degree  of  moral  agency,  or  a  low  and  feeble 
degree  of  those  faculties  which  constitute  them  moral 
agents,  as  we  find  the  case  actually  is  ;  they  must  be 
sinners  in  a  correspondent  degree.  This  view  of  the 
subject  appears  to  me  perfectly  reasonable.  Men  have 
by  nature  the  constitution — they  have  all  the  faculties, 
essential  to  moral  agency.  But  at  first  they  have  them 
in  a  small  degree.  Of  course  they  are  in  a  small  de- 
gree accountable  creatures — in  a  small  degree  capable 
of  sin ;  and  if  they  are  really  sinners,  they  must  be  so 
only  in  the  same  degree.  According  to  this  view,  there 
must  be  the  same  difference  between  men  of  mature  age 
and  little  children  in  regard  to  their  sinfulness,  as  there 


39 

is  in  regard  to  their  intellectual  and  moral  powers.  In 
early  childhood,  there  is  only  the  feeble  dawn  of  reason 
and  conscience  ;  only  the  commencement,  and  that  al- 
most imperceptible,  of  intellectual  and  moral  faculties, 
and  of  moral  agency — much  like  the  commencement  of 
corporeal  powers  and  corporeal  action  in  infancy.  As 
childhood  advances,  the  light  of  reason  and  conscience 
waxes  brighter  ;  the  intellectual  and  moral  powers  grad- 
ually increase,  till  they  come  to  a  good  degree  of  strength* 
Now  reason  and  observation  lead  us  to  think  it  is  so,  in 
regard  to  moral  evil.  In  early  childhood,  there  is  a 
small  and  almost  imperceptible  beginning  of  sinful  affec- 
tion, a  beginning  exactly  corresponding  to  the  feeble 
dawn  of  reason  and  conscience,  and  to  the  incipient  state 
of  moral  agency.  After  this,  sinful  affection  and  action 
gradually  increase  with  the  increasing  strength  of  the 
intellectual  and  moral  faculties,  till  they  rise  to  their  ul- 
timate state.  Is  there  any  thing  incredible  in  all  this? 
Is  it  not  fully  confirmed  by  the  actual  appearances  of 
human  nature  from  infancy  to  mature  age,  as  well  as  by 
the  representations  of  Scripture  ? 

But  our  attention  is  called  to  another  view  of  the 
subject.  In  regard  to  moral  agency,  as  well  as  many 
other  subjects,  Dr.  Ware  seems  to  agree  with  Dr.  John 
Taylor,  who  invests  his  opinions  and  arguments  with  such 
charms  of  genius  and  taste,  as  are  found  in  few  writers 
of  any  age.  Dr.  Ware  p„  20,  represents  man  as  with- 
out either  sin  or  holiness,  until  he  has,  by  the  exercise  of 
his  faculties,  actually  formed  a  character  either  good  or 
bad."  He  must  mean  an  exercise  of  the  faculties  which 
precedes  the  existence  of  either  sin  or  holiness.  In  anoth- 
er place,  he  seems  fond  of  representing,  that  men  make 
themselves  sinners  ;  which,  connected  as  it  is,  must  mean, 
that  they  are  not  sinners  before  they  make   themselves 


90 

so,  and  that  the  effort,  or  the  exercise  of  their  faculties, 
whatever  it  may  be,  by  which  they  make  themselves  sin- 
ners, takes  place  before  they  are  in  any  degree  the  sub- 
jects of  sin.  For  it  would  hardly  be  to  his  purpose  to 
say,  that  men  make  themselves  sinners  by  an  exercise  of 
their  faculties,  after  they  have  become  sinners  ;  though 
he  might  very  justly  affirm,  that  they  make  themselves 
more  and  more  sinful  in  that  way. 

This  then,  if  I  mistake  not,  is  Dr.  Ware's  theory,  as 
it  seems  to  be  of  many  celebrated  writers ;  namely ; 
that  men  make  themselves  sinners,  or  bring  themselves 
into  a  state  of  sinfulness,  or  form  a  sinful  disposition  in 
themselves,  by  an  exercise  of  their  powers,  or  a  course 
of  voluntary  action,  which  is  antecedent  to  the  first  ex- 
istence of  sin  in  them.  It  is  most  certainly  Dr.  Ware's 
meaning,  that  the  exercise  or  course  of  action,  by  which 
men  make  themselves  sinners,  precedes  the  first  exist- 
ence of  sin  in  them  ;  because  it  is  his  object  to  account 
for  the  fact,  that  men  first  become  sinners  ;  and  we 
should  not  expect  that  he  would  ascribe  the  commence- 
ment or  origin  of  moral  evil  in  mankind  to  an  exercise  of 
their  faculties,  which  takes  place  after  that  same  moral 
evil  has  begun  to  exist.  His  theory  then  is,  that  before 
men  have  any  taint  of  sin,  they  go  through  an  exercise 
of  their  faculties,  or  a  course  of  action,  which  results  in 
sin,  or  by  which  they  make  themselves  sinners. 

The  difficulties,  with  which  this  theory  is  encumber- 
ed, I  have  before  hinted  at.  But  I  shall  now  set  them 
before  the  reader  more  particularly  and  fully. 

1.  When  Dr.  Ware,  in  stating  this  theory,  speaks 
of  "  the  exercise  of  the  faculties,"  he  must  mean  those 
faculties  of  moral  agents,  which  he  thinks  men  pos- 
sess by  their  natural  birth.  I  ask  then,  wheth- 
er they  can  exercise  those  faculties,  without  being   w 


91 

fact  moral  agents  ;  or  in  other  words,  without  exercising 
their  moral  agency  ?  My  next  question  is,  how  they 
can  be  moral  agents,  and  perform  the  actions,  or  have 
the  feelings  of  moral  agents,  and  yet  have  neither  holi- 
ness nor  sin  ?  If  they  are  moral  agents,  they  are  account- 
able to  God.  Accountable  for  what  ?  Why,  according 
to  one  part  of  Dr.  Ware's  scheme,  accountable  for  an  ex- 
ercise of  the  faculties,  which  is  neither  holy  nor  sinful  ; 
not  holy,  for  if  it  were  holy,  it  surely  could  not  be  the 
way  in  which  men  "  make  themselves  sinners  ;" — and 
not  sinful,  because,  according  to  this  scheme,  sin  begins 
to  exist  as  its  consequence,  not  as  its  attribute,  or  attend- 
ant circumstance.  If  then  this  theory  is  true,  moral 
agents,  who  are  of  course  accountable  to  God,  are,  in  this 
case,  accountable  for  an  exercise  of  their  powers,  which 
is  neither  holy  nor  sinful.  What  does  such  accountable- 
ness  amount  to  ?  Further.  If  they  are  moral  agents, 
their  actions  have  a  relation  to  a  moral  law,  and  so  must 
be  conformed  or  not  conformed,  obedience  or  disobedi- 
ence. But  here  is  an  exercise  of  faculties  or  a  course  of 
action  in  moral  agents,  which  partakes  neither  of  obedi- 
ence nor  disobedience.  What  then  is  its  relation  to  law  ? 
And  of  what  account  is  it  in  a  moral  view  ? 

But  I  have  another  question  ;  namely  ;  how  can  such 
an  exercise  of  the  faculties,  or  such  a  course  of  action, 
as  is  supposed  by  Dr.  Ware,  produce  the  effect  attrib- 
uted to  it  ?  How  can  actions,  which  precede  the  existence 
of  moral  evil,  and  so  have  in  them  nothing  of  the  nature 
of  moral  evil,  tend  to  produce  moral  evil,  as  their  result  ? 
Was  there  ever  any  thing  like  this  in  the  history  of  the 
human  mind  ?  that  is,  that  a  rational,  voluntary  exercise 
should  produce  an  effect,  of  an  entirely  different  nature 
from  itself?  The  exercise  of  reason  may  produce  an  im- 
provement of  reason,  or  may  excite  a  rational  affection. 


92 

The  exercise  of  any  perverse,  corrupt  passion  may  in- 
crease the  strength  of  that  passion,  and  tend  to  bring 
the  mind  under  its  influence.  But  show  me  any  fact  in 
human  nature,  which  can  lead  us  to  think,  that  actions, 
in  no  degree  sinful,  will  produce  sin.  In  the  case  before 
us,  why  should  they  produce  sin,  rather  than  holiness  ? 
Have  they,  or  has  the  mind  in  which  they  exist,  any  ten- 
dency to  sin,  rather  than  to  holiness  ?  But  this  would 
be  contrary  to  Dr.  Ware's  scheme,  as  exhibited,  p.  20,  21, 
and  elsewhere.  Does  sin,  then,  rather  than  holiness,  re- 
sult from  those  actions,  by  ckance,  that  is,  without  any 
thing  in  them,  which  can  be  a  cause  of  this  result,  rather 
than  of  another  ?  If  so,  then  the  task  still  lies  on  Dr. 
Ware's  hands,  of  accounting  by  some  adequate  cause, 
for  the  first  existence  of  moral  evil  in  the  human  mind. 
The  difficulties  I  have  now  suggested,  though  quick- 
ly disposed  of  by  men  of  superficial  understanding,  will 
not  easily  be  passed  over  by  those,  who  are  accustomed 
to  close  and  patient  investigation.  Dr.  Ware  attributes 
the  first  existence  of  sin  in  the  individuals  of  our  race,  to 
a  certain  exercise  of  their  rational  faculties,  or  a  certain 
course  of  voluntary  action,  as  its  cause.  I  can  well 
enough  perceive  that,  according  to  the  knownlaws  of 
the  human  mind,  the  exercise  of  the  faculties  will 
strengthen  the  faculties,  and  that  any  course  of  voluntary 
action  will  strengthen  and  confirm  all  those  dispositions 
which  it  involves.  But  here  is  a  scheme  quite  different ; 
not  that  the  faculties  of  the  mind,  not  that  the  moral  dis- 
positions acquire  strength  by  exercise,  nor  that  intellectu- 
al and  moral  habits  are  in  this  way  generated,  or  con- 
firmed ;  but  that  an  exercise  of  the  faculties,  or  a  course 
of  action,  which  has  not  the  smallest  degree  of  any  thing 
sinful  in  it,  is  yet  the  cause  which  produces  sin,  or  the 
very  way  in  which   men  first  make  themselves  sinners.     I 


93 

ask  for  facts,  plain,  obvious  facts,  which  men  have  been 
conscious  of  in  themselves  or  witnessed  in  others,  to  es- 
tablish this  theory.  I  can  indeed  readily  admit,  that 
children  and  men  may  exercise  their  faculties  for  some 
time,  before  they  make  a  particular  disposition  or  trait 
of  character,  which  belongs  to  them,  manifest  to  others. 
This  may  be  owing  to  the  weakness  of  the  disposition, 
or  to  the  absence  of  those  causes,  which  would  excite  it 
in  any  sensible  degree  and  give  it  a  visible  form,  or  to 
the  influence  of  causes  which  lead  to  a  studied  conceal- 
ment. But  in  all  such  cases,  the  disposition  exists — ac- 
tually exists,  though  in  a  low  and  invisible  degree.  Mo- 
tives excite  it.  Exercise  strengthens  it.  Occasions  give 
it  form,  and  bring  it  out  to  view.  But  according  to  the 
settled  constitution  of  human  nature,  no  motives,  no  ex- 
ercise of  the  mind,  no  occasions  can  ever  produce  a  new 
moral  disposition  or  affection,  that  is  to  say,  one  which 
does  not  in  some  way  already  belong  to  the  mind.  They 
can  no  more  do  this,  than  they  can  produce  a  new  intel- 
lectual faculty,  or  a  new  bodily  appetite. — It  is  readily 
granted,  that  motives  and  occasions  may  produce  a  new 
modification  of  a  moral  disposition,  or  a  new  combination 
of  different  dispositions,  and  in  that  way  may  originate 
a  new  form  of  affection,  so  that  a  new  name  will  become 
necessary  ;  as  a  man,  who  has  a  spirit  of  selfishness 
lurking  within  him,  may,  at  one  time,  be  placed  in  cir- 
cumstances, which  will  give  his  selfishness  the  form  of 
pride  or  vanity  ;  at  another  time,  the  form  of  covetous- 
ness  ;  at  another  time,  the  form  of  envy  or  revenge. 
But  the  general  nature  of  pride,  vanity,  avarice,  envy 
and  revenge  is  involved  in  that  selfishness,  which  before 
lurked  in  the  mind,  and  which  may  be  considered  as  the 
original  affection.  In  all  these  cases,  there  is  nothing 
new  in  its  nature.     The  disposition,  which   is  excited  in 

13 


94 

a  course  of  voluntary  action,  is  one  which  before  existed 
either  in  the  same  form,  or  in  a  different  one.  But  Dr. 
Ware's  scheme  is  very  diverse  from  this.  He  undertakes 
to  account  for  the  origin  of  a  sinful  disposition,  by  an  ex- 
ercise of  the  faculties,  in  which  that  disposition  is  in  no 
sense  involved.  Let  Dr.  Ware  prove,  that  there  is  any 
connexion  between  such  a  cause  and  such  an  effect. 

Before  leaving*  this  part  of  Dr.  Ware's  scheme,  take 
one  short  view  of  it.  He  undertakes  to  account  for  the 
first  existence  of  sin  in  individuals  of  the  human  race. 
But  how  does  he  account  for  it  ?  He  says,  they  make 
themselves  sinners,  and  that  they  do  it  by  yielding  to 
temptation,  by  obeying  the  impulse  of  passion  in  opposition 
Co  reason  and  conscience,  and  by  subjecting  themselves  to  the 
dominion  of  the  inferior  part  of  their  nature.  But  how 
can  all  these  things  take  place,  without  implying  that 
sin  already  exists  ?  These  certainly  are  sins,  if  there  is 
any  such  thing  as  sin  in  the  world.  But  these  particu- 
lar modes  of  sinning  are  represented  as  accounting  for  the 
fact  that  men  are  sinners.  Thus  the  same  thing  is  made 
to  be  cause  and  effect.  But  how  will  Dr.  Ware  account 
for  these  particular  modes  of  sinning  ;  namely,  men's 
yielding  to  temptations  which  it  is  in  their  power  to  re- 
sist, obeying  the  impulse  of  passion,  &c  ?  If  sin  in  any 
other  form  is  to  be  accounted  for  by  a  proper  cause  ; 
why  not  in  these  forms  ?  Or  are  we  to  stop  short  here, 
as  Dr.  Ware  seems,  p.  37,  to  think  necessary  ?  Speak- 
ing with  reference  to  the  origin  of  sin,  he  says;  "  when 
we  have  traced  back  the  wickedness  of  men,  as  it  actu- 
ally exists,  to  the  voluntary  neglect,  perversion,  and 
abuse  of  the  nature  God  has  given  them,  we  can  go  no 
farther."  But  after  all,  this  is  only  tracing  back  the 
wickedness  of  men,  to  itself — wickedness  considered  gen- 
erally or  in  the  gross,  to  wickedness  in  particular  forms. 


95 

This  corrupt  nature  of  men  is  what  they  have  made  for 
themselves  ;  and  they  have  made  it  by  the  neglect,  per- 
version, and  abuse  of  the  nature  God  has  given  them. 
But  their  nature  must  have  been  already  corrupt,  when 
such  neglect,  perversion,  and  abuse  took  place.  These 
Avere  sins.  And  one  would  rather  suppose  it  rational  to 
make  a  corrupt  nature  account  for  these  particular  sins, 
than  to  make  these  account  for  that  ;  because,  manifest- 
ly, if  either  precedes  the  other,  and  may  act  as  a  cause 
of  the  other,  it  is  the  sinful  disposition  or  corrupt  nature? 
not  any  particular  modes  of  sinning.  Common  sense 
leads  us  to  ascribe  sinful  actions,  or  particular  modes  of 
sinning,  to  a  sinful  disposition  or  heart,  as  the  source,  and 
to  speak  of  them  as  deriving  from  that  source  all  their 
criminality. 

In  the  treatment  of  this  subject,  Dr.  Ware  seems  to 
have  a  very  commendable  motive,  that  is,  a  conviction 
of  the  weakness  and  fallibility  of  man.  He  says,  p.  37, 
;i  Questions  may  be  asked  upon  this  statement,  which 
cannot  be  answered,  because  we  have  not  faculties  which 
enable  us  in  any  cases,  to  trace  things  up  to  the  first 
cause  and  spring  of  action."  Had  Dr.  Taylor,  and  other 
writers  like  him,  observed  this  maxim,  they  never  would 
have  attempted  to  trace  back  the  existence  of  moral 
evil  in  man  to  its  first  cause  ;  or  if,  while  attempting 
this,  they  had  been  under  the  guidance  of  reason  or  phi- 
losophy, they  never  would  have  fixed  upon  the  opera- 
tion of  a  free-will,  or  self-determining  power.  Because 
it  is  perfectly  obvious,  that  the  particular  motions  or  de- 
terminations of  the  will  are  prompted  and  governed  by 
the  disposition  or  affections  of  the  heart.  This  is  one 
of  the  laws  of  our  nature.  And  if  in  any  case  it  should 
cease  to  be  so,  our  volitions  would  cease  to  be  either 
good  or  bad.     If  a   man  should  have   any  volition,    or 


96 

make  any  choice,  which  was  not  prompted  by  a  dis- 
position or  affection  of  the  heart ;  that  volition  or  choice 
would  no  more  be  of  a  moral  nature,  than  an  accidental 
motion  of  the  hand.  This  sentiment  is  recognized  in  all 
the  judgments  we  pass  upon  the  volitions  and  external 
actions  of  men.  The  moment  you  decide  what  was  the 
disposition  of  heart,  which  gave  rise  to  any  particular 
volitions,  or  determinate  acts  of  the  will,  you  decide 
the  character  of  those  volitions.  But  if,  in  any  case, 
you  are  unable  to  decide  the  former,  you  are  of  course 
unable  to  decide  the  latter.  Or  if,  in  any  case,  you 
could  entirely  separate  particular  volitions  from  the  dis- 
position of  the  heart ;  you  could  no  longer  regard  them, 
as  of  a  moral  nature.  This  is  the  constitution  of  the 
human  mind;  the  irreversible  appointment  of  God.  The 
prevailing  disposition  or  affection  of  the  heart  prompts 
particular  acts  or  determinations  of  the  will,  and  satisfac- 
torily accounts  for  them.  For  example,  the  particu- 
lar choice  or  determination  of  Judas  to  accept  the  thirty 
pieces  of  silver,  and  deliver  Christ  to  the  rulers,  arose 
from  his  avarice,  or  from  his  resentment,  or  from  both. 
As  long  as  men  are  free,  they  will  follow  their  incli- 
nation, or  choose  and  act  according  to  their  disposition. 
But  was  there  ever  any  such  thing  in  human  nature,  as 
that  particular  volitions  or  determinate  acts  of  the  will 
preceded  and  produced  the  disposition  or  affection  of  the 
heart  ?  And  if  not, — then,  how  can  any  power  or  act 
of  free-will  be  considered  philosophically,  as  the  cause 
of  what  is  sinful  in  the  human  character? 

There  is  another  commendable  motive  which  seems 
to  have  influenced  Dr.  Ware.  He  says,  p.  37,  "No  dif- 
ficulty so  great  and  insurmountable  meets  us,  as,  on  the 
opposite  theory,  is  the  moral  difficulty  in  which  it  involves 
the  character  of  the  Author   of  our  being."     My  reply 


97 

is,  first,  that  no  proof  has  ever  yet  been  given,  that  the 
doctrine  of  native  depravity  involves  the  character  of 
God  in  any  difficulty;  and  secondly;  that  if  God's  char- 
acter is  to  be  vindicated  in  relation  to  this  subject,  it 
must  be  by  something  better  than  sophistical  reasoning. 
But  after  all,  Dr.  Ware  seems  to  have  no  kind  of 
hesitation,  as  to  the  truth  of  his  system,  and  the  conclu- 
siveness of  his  reasoning.  He  has  told  us,  as  though  it 
were  perfectly  obvious  and  certain,  (and  the  same  may 
be  repeated  bv  others,)  "  that  man  is  by  nature  capable 
of  making  a  right  or  wrong  choice,  and  no  more  in- 
clined to  one  than  the  other;  that  he  makes  himself  a 
sinner  by  yielding  to  temptation  and  obeying  the  im- 
pulse of  passion  ;  that  all  his  wickedness  may  be  ac- 
counted for  without  any  native  bias  to  sin  ;  that  it  may 
all  be  but  the  effect  of  neglect  to  restrain  appetites 
in  themselves  good,  to  give  proper  direction  to  pow- 
ers designed  to  be  useful,  and  in  general,  of  a  failure 
to  exercise  properly,  in  temptations  and  trials,  the  pow- 
ers of  direction  and  resistance,  which  were  in  themselves 
sufficient."  Now  I  have  already  granted  that  these  are 
ways  in  which  men  commit  sin  ;  ways  in  which  they  ex- 
hibit and  increase  their  depravity.  But  I  might  say  too, 
that  mankind  sin  by  worshipping  idols,  by  taking  the 
name  of  God  in  vain,  by  profaning  the  Sabbath,  by  cov- 
etousnecs  and  revenge.  And  why  would  it  not  be  just 
as  proper  for  me  to  account  for  the  fact,  that  men  are 
sinners,  by  these  forms  of  sin,  and  to  say,  that  their  de- 
pravity is  but  the  effect  of  idolatry,  profaneness,  covet- 
ousness  and  revenge,  as  to  do  what  Dr.  Ware  has  done  ? 
The  plain  fact  is,  that  the  neglect  and  perversion  and 
abuse  of  our  faculties,  yielding  to  temptation,  and  the 
other  things  which  Dr.  Ware  has  mentioned,  and  all  the 
more  particular  instances  of  sin,  as  idolatry,  profaneness, 


98 

covetousness,  slander,  revenge,  &c,  constitute  human  wick- 
edness. They  make  up  the  amount  of  man's  sin;  as  the 
parts  of  any  thing,  taken  together,  make  up  the  whole. 
But  these  various  parts  of  human  wickedness,  or  ways 
of  sinning,  are  not  the  cause  of  the  depravity  of  the  heart, 
but  spring  from  it ;  as  our  Saviour  teaches,  Matt.  xv.  19. 
"  Out  of  the  heart  proceed  evil  thoughts,  murders,  adul- 
teries, fornications,  thefts,  false  witness,  blasphemies." 
These  things  show  the  depravity  of  the  heart,  but  do  not 
produce  it,  nor  in  any  wise  account  for  it.  Name  any  form 
of  human  wickedness,  any  thought,  volition,  choice,  ac- 
tion, which  is  sinful ;  any  instance  of  yielding  to  tempta- 
tion ;  any  perversion  or  abuse  of  our  faculties  ;  and  you 
name  that  which  proceeds  from  depravity  of  heart. 
If  you  say  it  is  not  so,  then  you  say,  that  man  can  com- 
mit sin  with  a  sinless  heart,  or  else  without  any  heart  at 
all.  Now  take  the  earliest  act  of  sin  which  men  com- 
mit, the  first  sinful  thought,  volition,  or  choice,  the  first 
yielding  to  temptation,  the  first  neglect  or  abuse  of  God's 
gifts,  which  takes  place  in  children  ;  and  even  that  im- 
plies a  sinful  disposition,  or  depravity  of  heart,  and  pro- 
ceeds from  it.  The  sinfulness  of  the  heart  must  be  re- 
sorted to,  as  the  fountain  of  every  act  and  every  form  of 
sin,  from  the  commencement  of  moral  agency.  And 
when  Dr.  Ware  says,  all  men  are  sinners  "  as  soon  as 
they  are  moral  agents,"  he  does  as  much  as  to  say, 
they  have  a  sinful  or  depraved  heart  as  soon  as  they 
are  moral  agents ;  as  there  is  no  other  way  in  which  they 
can  be  sinners.  If  then  he  would  account  for  the  origin 
of  moral  evil  in  man,  he  must  account  for  the  wrong  dis- 
position or  sinfulness  of  heart,  which  is  just  as  evidently 
presupposed  in  every  particular  act  and  every  mode  of  sin- 
ning, as  goodness  of  disposition  is  presupposed  in  every  act  of 
obedience,  or  as  the  principle  of  gravitation  is  presupposed 


99 

in  every  instance  in  which  a  stone  falls  to  the  earth,  or  any 
one  body  tends  towards  another.  The  first  sinfulness  or  de- 
pravity of  the  heart  is  no  more  produced  by  a  sinful  volition 
or  action,  than  the  principle  of  gravitation  is  produced  by 
the  falling  of  a  stone,  or  the  descent  of  a  river.  My  position 
is,  that  men  have  this  sinfulness  or  depravity  of  heart  by 
nature,  and  that  it  is  not  the  effect  of  any  preceding  vo- 
lition or  action  in  them,  nor  the  effect  of  any  change 
they  undergo  after  their  birth.  And  in  reality,  this 
seems  to  be  taught  by  Dr.  Ware  himself  in  some  re- 
markable passages  of  his  Letters.  We  gather  from  pp. 
20,  21,  41,45,  that  men  are  by  nature  accountable  be- 
ings, or  moral  agents,  but  that  they  are  destitute  of  holi- 
ness, and  not  inclined  to  holiness.  And  is  it  not  sin,  for 
those  who  are  accountable  beings,  to  be  destitute  of  ho- 
liness, and  destitute  of  all  inclination  to  holiness  ?  Js  not 
this  the  very  case,  upon  which  our  Saviour  put  the 
mark  of  his  high  displeasure,  when  he  said,  "  I  know  that 
ye  have  not  the  love  of  God  in  you  ?"  But  every  doubt 
as  to  Dr.  Ware's  views  would  seem  to  be  taken  awav 
by  what  we  find  pp.  44,47,  where  he  represents  all  men 
as  reasonable  beings  or  moral  agents  by  nature,  and  sin- 
ners as  soon  as  moral  agents  ;  and  where  he  represents 
Christians  as  delivered  from  the  state  of  wrath  in  which 
they  had  Ywed  from  their  birth.  This  is  all  I  would  con- 
tend for.  Dr.  Ware  would  hardly  acknowledge  this  to 
be  really  a  part  of  his  system.  But  it  is  a  little  remark- 
able that,  in  a  free  investigation  of  the  sense  of  Scripture. 
he  should  let  fall  expressions  so  contrary  to  his  own  the- 
ory, and  so  consonant  to  ours.* 

*  Dr.  Ware  appears  to  have  been  somewhat  inadvertent  in  his  language,  or 
unfortunate  in  his  argument  on  some  parts  of  this  subject.  In  his  remarks  on 
Ephes.  ii.  3.  "And  were  by  nature  children  of  wrath,"  he  says,  "it  does  not 
poiui  to  anything  inbred  or  native— not  to  the  state  of  men  as  they  come  into 
the  world  ;"  but  yet  a  few  lines  after,  he  says  it  denotes  that  very  state.  '•  into 
which  they  came  by  their  birth.'1'1  p.  45. 


100 

We  have  now  come  in  our  reasoning,  to  an  ultimate  fact. 
Man,  in  the  state  into  which  he  is  born,  has  a  sinful  heart, 
or  is  inclined  to  sin.  If  any  one  thinks  this  supposition 
inconsistent  with  moral  agency  ;  I  ask,  how  it  is  any 
more  inconsistent  with  moral  agency  for  man  to  be  a 
sinner,  or  to  be  inclined  to  sin  at  first,  than  afterwards? 
If  you  deny  that  man  can  begin  to  be  a  sinner  at  the 
commencement  of  his  moral  agency,  or  that  his 
first  moral  affections  or  actions  can  be  sinful  ;  then 
tell  me  when  he  can  begin  to  be  a  sinner.  Can 
he  the  second  hour,  or  month,  or  year  after  his 
moral  agency  commences  ?  But  if  he  has  been 
exercising  his  moral  agency  an  hour  or  month  or  year, 
without  sin,  he  has  been  exercising  a  holy  agency  ;  and 
he  must  have  done  something  towards  acquiring  a  habit 
of  holiness.  Now  is  it  more  easy  and  more  consistent 
to  suppose,  that  he  will  begin  to  sin  after  such  a  habit 
of  holiness  is  formed,  than  before?  No  supposition  can 
be  made  of  sin's  commencing  in  man  at  any  period  sub- 
sequent to  his  first  existing  as  a  moral  agent,  which  will, 
in  the  smallest  degree,  relieve  the  difficulty  attending  the 
supposition  of  its  commencing  at  first.  A  being  consti- 
tuted, as  man  is,  an  accountable,  moral  agent,  must  be 
blame-worthy  for  every  affection  and  action  which  is  not 
conformed  to  the  rule  of  duty,  whenever  that  affection 
or  action  takes  place.  If  you  deny  this,  you  deny  that 
the  rule  of  duty  is  just.  If  you  allow  this,  you  allow 
that  sin's  commencing  at  the  commencement  of  man's 
moral  existence  does  not  prevent  its  ill-desert. 

I  have  wished  to  dwell  upon  this  point  long  enough 
to  make  it  perfectly  plain,  and  to  prevent,  if  possible,  the 
endless  repetition  of  the  saying,  that  man  cannot  be  cul- 
pable for  any  thing  which  he  has  by  nature — for  any  thing 
which  is   not  the  fruit  or  consequence  of  his  own  choice. 


101 

Nothing  can  be  more  groundless  than  this  notion.  For 
whenever,  and  in  whatever  way,  man  has  what  the  di- 
vine law  forbids,  or  is  destitute  of  what  it  requires,  he  is 
culpable;  unless  the  law  itself  is  in  fault. 

Mankind  will  indeed  have  difficulties  respecting  that 
agency,  which  God  is  supposed  to  exercise  in  this  case, 
and  the  consistency  of  it  with  his  infinite  holiness  and 
goodness.  An  outcry  is  raised  against  the  Orthodox  for 
charging  it  to  the  fault  of  sinners,  that  they  are  what 
God  made  them.     And  though  it  has  been  shown  a  thou- 

c 

sand  times,  that  our  doctrine  is  liable  to  no  valid  objec- 
tion in  this  respect ;  the  objection  is  still  reiterated  ;  just 
as  though  the  writings  of  the  Edwardses  and  others  on 
this  subject  had  never  been  published,  or  had  been  fair- 
ly confuted. 

My  general  remark  on  this  topic  is,  that,  in  regard 
to  the  divine  agency,  and  the  divine  goodness,  the  theory 
which  I  advocate  is  liable  to  no  such  objection  as  that 
above  suggested,  more  than  the  theory  of  my  opponent. 
The  difficulties  attending  his  theory,  are  perfectly  obvi- 
ous to  every  intelligent  man.  Human  beings,  he  would 
say,  are  brought  into  being  in  a  state  where  they  are  ex- 
posed to  danger.  But  if  there  must  be  danger,  still  why 
are  they  not  fortified  against  it  ?  Why  are  not  poor, 
frail  creatures,  who  have  as  yet  no  moral  principle  to 
guide  them,  so  aided  by  divine  goodness  at  the  outset, 
that  they  shall  take  a  right  direction?  They  are  at 
first,  it  seems,  in  a  state  of  perfect  equilibrium,  inclined 
neither  one  way  nor  the  other.  Their  Maker  sees  this. 
He  has  put  them  in  this  state.  Why  does  he  not,  at 
this  critical  period,  when  they  are  so  weak,  and  so  de- 
pendent on  him,  just  interpose,  and  turn  the  scale  in  fa- 
vour of  holiness  ?  Why  does  he  leave  all,  when  they 
first  act  as  moral  beings,  to  act  wrong — to  catch  the  fa- 
14 


102 

tai  contagion  of  sin  ?  Why  does  he  expose  them  to  that 
contagion  ?  And  how  does  it  happen  that,  without  any 
predisposition  to  evil,  they  all  run  into  it  ?  The  scale 
equally  balanced,  without  the  least  tendency  one  way  or 
the  other,  always  turns  the  wrong  way.  And  God  stands 
by,  and  sees  it,  and  lets  it  be,  when  a  very  little  help 
from  him  would  prevent.  And  is  there  no  difficulty  in 
this  ? 

But  considering  the  importance  attached  to  the  par- 
ticular subject  now  before  us,  I  shall  extend  my  remarks 
a  little  farther ;  making  it  my  object  to  show,  that  the 
scheme  of  Unitarians  is  attended  with  as  many,  and  as 
great  difficulties,  as  that  of  the  Orthodox. 

It  will  doubtless  be  consistent  with  Dr.  Ware's  views, 
to  admit  any  divine  agency  in  dependent  beings,  which 
is  necessary  to  their  existing  and  acting,  and  which  is 
suited  to  their  rational  and  moral  nature.  Philosophical 
Unitarians,  who  respect  the  authority  of  Hartley,  or 
Priestley,  will  maintain,  as  strenuously  as  any  of  the  Or- 
thodox, that  all  the  volitions  and  actions  of  men,  wheth- 
er good  or  bad,  result  from  causes,  which  operate  accord- 
ing to  the  settled  laws  of  our  nature  ;  and  that  those 
causes  are  entirely  under  God's  control,  and  are  made 
efficacious  by  his  will.  Indeed  I  see  not  how  any  man 
can  deny  this,  without  falling  into  athesim.  To  prevent 
misapprehension  in  the  minds  of  any  of  my  readers,  I 
will  here  add,  that  the  agency  which  we  ascribe  to  God 
in  the  formation  and  preservation  of  moral  agents,  and 
in  the  direction  of  those  causes  which  determine  their 
moral  actions,  is  not  to  be  illustrated  by  the  agency  of 
God  in  the  natural  world.  God's  forming  a  moral  agent 
is  not  like  his  forming  a  stone  or  a  tree.  His  giving 
activity  to  man,  and  efficacy  to  the  moral  causes 
which  operate  upon  him,  is  not  like  his  giving  efficacy  to 


103 

the  causes  which  relate  to  the  growth  of  a  tree,  or  to 
the  motion  of  the  planets.  The  influence  by  which  God, 
in  any  case,  leads  men  to  act,  is  an  influence  suited  to 
their  rational,  active  nature.  It  is  not  onlyconsistent  with 
their  moral  agency,  but  is  its  grand  security.  The  caus- 
es which,  according  to  the  divine  appointment,  act  upon 
moral  agents,  do  indeed  produce  effects.  But  what  are 
those  effects,  but  rational,  moral  actions,  actions  of  such 
a  nature,  that  those,  who  perform  them,  are  justly  and 
in  the  highest  degree  accountable  ? 

After  these  explanatory  observations,  I  request  my 
opponents  candidly  to  inquire,  whether  the  Orthodox 
theory  is  involved  in  any  difficulty  with  respect  to  the 
divine  agency,  from  which  theirs  is  free.  Is  more  divine 
agency  necessary  to  account  for  moral  action  in  the 
first  stage  of  our  existence,  than  afterwards  ?  Or  in  ac- 
counting for  men's  beginning  to  sin  as  soon  as  they  be- 
gin to  be  moral  agents,  is  it  necessary  that  the  influence 
which  God  exerts,  or  the  causes  which  he  appoints,  should 
be  applied  to  them  in  a  different  manner  from  what 
they  are  in  regard  to  sins  afterwards  committed?  Are 
not  men  at  all  times  equally  dependent  on  God?  Are 
not  their  feelings  and  actions  regulated  by  the  same  caus- 
es at  the  beginning  of  their  moral  existence,  as  at  any 
other  period?  And  are  they  not  as  really  accountable, 
when  they  first  exist  as  moral  agents,  as  when  they  have 
been  moral  agents  for  years  ?  I  speak  not  here,  as  to 
the  degree  in  which  they  exert  their  rational  powers,  or 
the  degree  in  which  they  are  praise-worthy,  or  blame- 
worthy ;  but  as  to  the  fact  of  their  really  exerting  them, 
and  the  fact  of  their  being  accountable.  Now  how  can 
it  be  supposed,  that  the  theory  of  native  depravity  in- 
volves any  greater  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  divine  agen- 
cy, than  any   other  theory  which  admits  that  man  is   a 


104 

sinner ;  inasmuch  as  the  only  difference  in  this  respect 
is,  that,  according  to  one,  man  begins  to  be  a  sinner  ear- 
lier, than  according  to  the  other  ?  Those  who  assert 
that  men  begin  to  be  sinners  at  a  later  period,  are  as 
much  obliged  to  account  for  that  fact  without  in- 
volving a  divine  agency  that  is  inadmissible,  as  we 
are  to  account  for  the  fact  that  men  are  sinners 
from  the  first.  The  fact  which  they  are  to  account 
for,  is,  that  men  who  have  been  moral  agents  for  some 
time,  and  have,  by  the  exercise  of  holiness,  done  some- 
thing towards  forming  a  habit  of  holiness,  should  then  be- 
ts o  ' 

come  sinners.  The  task  of  accounting  for  this  is,  to  say 
the  least,  as  hard  as  what  falls  to  us.  For  how  is  it 
that  the  holy  affections,  which  have  for  some  time 
been  acquiring  strength  by  exercise,  should,  in  eve- 
rv  human  being,  so  easily  give  place  to  sinful  affec- 
tions ?  and  that  a  habit,  which  has  attained  more  or  less 
confirmation,  should  be  so  easily  overcome  ?  How  is  it 
that  men  can,  according  to  the  fixed  laws  which  regulate 
the  mind,  be  uniformly  induced  to  sin,  by  any  causes 
whatever  ?  Are  not  all  the  causes,  which  operate 
upon  them,  under  the  direction  of  the  Almighty  ?  Sup- 
pose they  are  drawn  aside  from  duty  by  temptations 
arising  from  external  objects.  Who  is  it  but  God  that 
formed  and  arranged  those  objects  ?  And  who  is  it  but 
God,  that  has  given  man  that  constitution  of  body  and 
mind,  which  exposes  him  to  receive  an  impression  from 
those  objects,  and  to  be  drawn  aside  by  their  influence? 
Who  is  it  that  places  him  in  such  a  situation,  that  those 
objects  acquire  so  mighty  a  sway  over  his  feelings  and 
his  actions  ?  How  easy  would  it  be  for  that  God,  who 
contrives  and  rules  all  things,  so  to  direct  the  circum- 
stances of  man,  or,  in  all  circumstances,  so  to 
influence    his    mind,  that    he    should    never    fall    into 


105 

sin  ?  Or  suppose  he  is  drawn  into  sin  by  his  appe- 
tites  and  passions.  Who  gave  him  those  appetites 
and  passions  ?  And  who  gave  them  power  thus  to  in- 
fluence his  conduct  ?  Or  who  gave  him  a  moral  consti- 
tution so  weak,  as  to  be  uniformly  overcome  by  such  an 
influence  ?  Or  to  go  back  a  little  farther.  When  God 
formed  the  plan  of  this  world,  did  he  not  clearly  see  how 
the  mind  of  man,  placed  under  the  influence  of  such 
causes,  would  operate  ?  Did  he  not  see  how  it  would 
evolve  its  powers  and  its  affections;  how  it  would  be 
impressed  by  other  objects  ;  and  what  would  ultimately 
be  its  moral  aspect?  Did  he  not  foresee  all  this?  Did 
he  not  form  things  as  they  are,  with  a  perfect  foreknowl- 
edge of  the  result?  Was  it  possible  for  him  to  adopt 
such  a  scheme,  made  up  of  causes  and  effects  in  the 
moral  as  well  as  in  the  natural  world,  with  any  other 
view,  than  that  the  consequences  which  have  actually 
taken  place,  should  take  place  ?  Say,  if  you  please, 
that  man's  conduct  and  character  are  owing  to  his 
own  free  will.  Did  not  God  give  him  his  free  will  ? 
And  when  he  gave  it,  did  he  not  know  exactly  what  it 
was,  and  how  it  would  operate  ?  And  is  it  not  accord- 
ing to  his  plan,  that  man's  free  will  is  influenced  as  it  is 
by  the  various  causes  which  affect  it  ?  Should  it  be  said, 
the  will  is  prompted  to  act  by  no  motive  or  cause  ex- 
traneous to  itself;  my  reply  would  be,  first,  that  this  would 
relieve  no  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  character  and  agency 
of  God.  For  if  the  will  were  not  actuated  by  external  mo- 
tives or  causes,  then  we  should  be  under  the  necessity  of 
concluding  that  God  so  constituted  the  will,  that  it  should 
be  moved  to  act  bv  causes  within  itself,  those  causes,  and 
the  influence  they  should  have  on  the  mind,  being  as 
much  dependent  on  a  divine  arrangement,  as  any  ^hing 
else.     But  I  should  reply,  secondly,  that  as  man  is  in 


106 

fact  constituted,  such  a  supposition  is  not  admissible. 
Because  acts  of  the  will,  not  prompted  by  the  disposi* 
tion  of  the  heart,  nor  by  any  other  motive,  could  have 
no  moral  character.  Of  this  any  man  may  be  satisfied, 
who  will  allow  himself  to  think.  It  is  perfectly  plain, 
that  any  determinations  of  the  will,  in  order  to  be  vir- 
tuous or  vicious,  must  be  influenced  by  motives,  and  by 
motives  of  a  moral  nature.  Motives  are  the  proximate 
causes  of  all  voluntary  actions  ;  and  must  be  so,  or  we 
cease  to  be  moral  agents.  But  are  not  these  motives 
wholly  under  the  divine  control  ? 

Now  let  Dr.  Ware,  in  view  of  the  whole  subject, 
clearly  show,  how  the  concern  which  God  must  have 
with  moral  actions,  in  any  instance  of  transgression,  which 
takes  place  in  any  period  of  life,  can  be  admitted,  with- 
out dishonour  to  his  character;  and  I  will  show  how 
it  can  be  admitted  in  the  case  of  that  early  trans- 
gression, which  our  doctrine  asserts.  I  insist  that  a  mor- 
al depravity,  existing  from  the  first,  involves  no  greater 
difficulty  respecting  the  divine  agency,  than  the  scheme 
advocated  by  our  opponents. 

The  truth  of  Dr.  Ware's  declaration,  that  "  we  have 
not  faculties  which  enable  us  in  any  cases  to  trace  things 
up  to  the  first  cause  and  spring  of  action,"  I  do  not  ad- 
mit, without  some  limitation.  It  is  indeed  true  in  all 
cases,  where  God  has  not,  in  one  way  or  another,  given 
us  sufficient  information.  But  as  to  the  subject  now  un- 
der consideration,  God  has  not  left  us  in  such  profound 
ignorance,  as  seems  to  be  signified  by  the  above  cited 
remark.  And  is  there  not  an  appearance,  in  this  place, 
of  Dr.  Ware's  shrinking  back  from  the  task  of  tracing; 
the  universal  wickedness  of  man  up  to  its  cause  or  spring, 
lest  he  should  run  himself  upon  the  same  difficulty,  which 
he  charges  upon  the  Orthodox  doctrine  ?     But  in  reali- 


107 

ty,  how  can  he  excuse  himself  from  attempting,  by  some 
adequate  cause,  to  account  for  that  universal  wickedness 
which,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  he  frequently  acknowledges  ? 
It  behoves  him  at  least,  to  admit  candidly,  and  without 
fear  of  consequences,  the  natural,  obvious  meaning  of 
those  texts  of  Scripture,  which  expressly  assign  such  a 
cause;  and  not  to  impose  upon  himself,  or  his  readers, 
by  a  representation,  which  does  nothing  more  or  less, 
than  to  make  sin  the  cause  of  itself.  He  surely  could 
not  mean  to  say,  that  it  has  no  cause  ;  for  this  would  be 
the  same  as  saying,  that  it  takes  place  by  chance — that 
it  is  a  mere  accident,  or  mishap.  And  who  ever  thought 
himself  accountable  for  the  freaks  of  chance  ? 

Possibly  Dr.  Ware  might  allow,  that  our  rational, 
moral  nature  has  settled  laws,  and  always  acts  under  the 
influence  of  moral  causes,  and  yet  say,  it  is  not  for  us  to 
know,  what  those  laws  or  causes  are.  But  most  certain- 
ly, this  must  be  regarded  as  a  suitable  subject  of  inquiry. 
"  The  proper  study  of  mankind  is  man."  Nor  does  mod- 
esty or  humility  forbid  us  to  extend,  as  far  as  possible, 
our  knowledge  of  the  properties  of  the  mind,  and  of  the 
causes  which  influence  its  actions.  Nor  does  honesty 
permit  us  to  stifle  or  conceal  our  convictions.  Knowl- 
edge in  regard  to  this  general  subject  is  of  the  highest 
practical  importance.  For  there  is  no  way,  in  which  we 
can  exercise  any  salutary  discipline  over  our  own  minds, 
or  attain  any  thing  like  self-government,  unless  we  have 
learnt,  in  a  good  degree,  the  attributes  and  laws  of  our 
intellectual  and  moral  nature.  But  how  is  this  knowl- 
edge to  be  obtained  ?  Plainly,  by  experience  and  obser- 
vation. From  ourselves  and  others  we  learn  in  what 
manner,  and  under  what  causes  the  mind  acts.  Now  it 
might  be  easy  enough  for  Dr.  Ware  to  account  for  the 
moral  disorders  which  prevail  in  the  world,  if  the  single 


X 


108 

fact  were  admitted,  that  men  are  actually  depraved,  01 
have  become  sinners.  For  it  is  what  every  body  knows, 
that  men  will  act  according  to  their  prevailing  disposition, 
and  that  their  disposition  is  strengthened  and  confirmed 
by  repeated  acts.  But  the  difficulty,  which  it  behoves 
my  opponent  to  solve,  is,  that  reasonable,  moral  beings, 
coming  into  existence  with  a  nature  perfectly  pure — 
with  a  nature  not  in  the  least  inclined  to  evil,  should  uni- 
versally become  sinners,  as  soon  as  they  are  capable  of 
action.  No  act  of  the  will  can  account  for  this  fact. 
Certainly  no  right  act  of  the  will  can  account  for  it. 
And  there  can  be  no  wrong  act  of  the  will,  before  there 
is  a  wrong  disposition  or  affection  of  heart.  But  if  men 
have  a  wrong  disposition,  they  are  already  depraved, 
and  their  being  so  is  not  by  any  means  to  be  accounted 
for,  by  that  sinful  act  of  the  will,  which  takes  place  after 
they  become  so. 

The  corrupting  influence  of  bad  example  is  mention- 
ed by  Dr.  Ware  and  others,  to  account  for  the  early  and 
general  depravity  of  mankind.  But  is  this  satisfactory? 
Upon  the  supposition  that  men  are  iree  from  all  wrong  bias, 
and  perfectly  pure,  they  can  have  no  disposition  to  fol- 
low a  bad  example,  or  in  the  least  degree  to  be  pleased 
with  it.  And  if  they  have  no  disposition  to  follow  it,  or 
be  pleased  with  it,  it  surely  cannot  injure  them.  There 
is  no  conceivable  way,  in  which  any  bad  example,  any 
temptation  or  solicitation  to  sin  from  without,  can  be  in- 
jurious to  us,  but  by  meeting  with  a  disposition  in  us 
which  concurs  with  it,  and  draws  us  into  compliance. 
The  power  of  temptation,  whenever  it  prevails,  lies  in 
such  a  disposition  in  us.  But  such  a  disposition  is 
sinful.  Where  it  exists,  even  in  the  smallest  degree, 
sin  is  already  begun.  Jesus  was  always,  from  the 
first,  perfectly    free    from  any  sinful   disposition  :    and 


109 

therefore  no  temptation  had  any  effect  upon  him,  but  to 
exercise  and  confirm  his  virtue.  Temptation  never  pro- 
duces its  effect  upon  moral  agents,  either  in  a  compulso- 
ry manner,  or  by  chance.  They  have  a  propensity,  oft- 
en unperceived  by  themselves,  to  the  sins,  which  they 
are  tempted  to  commit.  The  prevalence  of  temptation  to 
draw  them  into  sin  is  always  considered  a  proof,  that  there 
is  something  wrong  in  their  disposition.  Were  it  possi- 
ble that  temptation  should  in  any  case  have  influence 
to  lead  men  into  sin,  when  there  is  no  sinful  incli- 
nation mixing  with  it,  and  giving  it  influence  ;  their 
compliance  might  be  a  misfortune,  but  could  not  be  a 
crime.  It  appears  therefore,  that  the  influence  of  temp- 
tation, though  it  may  account  for  the  first  display  of  mor- 
al evil,  or  for  the  first  outward,  palpable  act  of  sin,  can- 
not account  for  the  first  existence  of  that  which  is  the 
root  and  essence  of  all  sin,  namely,  a  corrupt  disposition 
of  heart. 

The  attempt  of  Dr.  Taylor  to  account  for  the  cor- 
ruption of  the  world  by  the  influence  of  bad  example,  is 
particularly  answered  by  Edwards.  The  following  is  a 
summary  of  the  answer. — It  is  accounting  for  the  corrup- 
tion of  the  world  by  itself.  For  the  universal  prevalence 
of  bad  examples  is  the  very  corruption  to  be  accounted 
for.  If  mankind  are  naturallv  no  more  inclined  to  evil 
than  to  good  ;  how  comes  it  to  pass,  that  there  are,  in 
all  ages,  so  many  more  bad  examples,  than  good  ones  ? 
Or  if  there  are  not  more  bad  ones  than  good,  how  is  if, 
that  the  bad  are  so  much  more  followed  ?  And  when 
opposition  has  been  made  by  good  examples,  how  comes 
it  to  pass  that  it  has  had  so  little  effect  to  stem  the  gen- 
eral current  of  wickedness  ?  There  have  in  different 
ages  been  examples  of  eminent  piety  and  goodness,  as 
that  of  Noah,  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  of  the  Pro 
15 


110 

phets,  apostles,  afid  martyrs,  but  especially  the  exam- 
ple of  Christ,  which  was  in  all  respects  perfect,  and 
was  exhibited  in  a  manner  and  in  circumstances  to  excite 
the  highest  possible  interest.  These  examples  are  con- 
stantly held  up  to  view  in  the  Scriptures,  and  by  the 
ministers  of  religion,  and  would  surely  produce  a  gen- 
eral effect  in  Christian  lands,  were  there  not  a  propensi- 
ty in  man  to  follow  bad  examples  rather  than  good  ones. 

Again.  The  influence  of  bad  example,  without  cor- 
ruption of  nature,  will  not  account  for  children's  univer- 
sally committing  sin,  as  soon  as  they  are  capable  of  it, 
especially  the  children  of  eminently  pious  parents. 

Several  Unitarians  have  triumphantly  repeated  of 
late,  what  Dr.  Taylor  said  long  ago,  that  the  occurrence 
of  sin  in  Adam,  who  is  admitted  on  both  sides  to  have 
been  at  first  sinless,  invalidates  the  grand  argument  of 
the  Orthodox  in  proof  of  native  depravity. 

I  frankly  acknowledge  that  this  fact  does  invali- 
date the  argument  of  the  Orthodox,  so  far  as  they 
have  attempted  to  prove  the  native  depravity  of  men 
from  the  naked  fact,  that  they  all  comrmt  sin.  Although 
all  who  have  come  to  adult  years,  are  sinners;  this,  by 
itself,  is  no  conclusive  proof,  that  they  were  smners,from 
their  birth.  For  if  an  individual,  and  that  individual  the 
parent  of  our  race,  may  change  from  native  innocence  to 
sin  ;  we  could  not,  by  our  own  reason,  certainly 
determine,  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  the 
whole  race  to  change  in  like  manner.  We  must  look 
then  for  facts.  And  for  the  evidence  of  facts,  we  must 
rely  wholly  on  our  own  experience  and  observation,  and 
on  the  word  of  God.  If  Ave  could  call  to  remembrance 
several  years  at  the  commencement  of  our  life,  in  which 
we  were  wholly  without  sin  ;  or  if  we  learnt,  by  care- 
ful observation,  that  children  generally  live  a  number  of 


Ill 

years  in  a  perfectly  sinless  state ;  or  if  the  Scriptures 
taught  us  that  such  is  the  state  of  human  beings  at  the 
beginning  of  their  life  ;  we  should  be  obliged  to  admit 
the  original  purity  of  their  nature,  as  we  do  that  of  Adam, 
though  they  all  become  sinners  afterwards.  In  regard 
to  Adam,  there  is  satisfactory  proof  of  the  fact,  that  he 
was,  at  first,  in  a  state  of  holiness,  and  for  a  time  continu- 
ed in  that  state.  But  where  is  the  evidence  that  such  is 
the  first  moral  state  of  his  posterity?  We  have  seen 
abundant  evidence,  that  the  contrary  is  true.  In  the 
case  of  Adam,  we  have  evidence,  that  his  transgressing 
the  divine  law  implied  a  change  of  his  moral  nature,  from 
holiness  to  sin.  But  respecting  his  posterity,  both  ex- 
perience and  the  word  of  God  lead  us  to  conclude,  that 
the  only  moral  change  they  are  capable  of,  is  from  sin 
to  holiness.  The  two  cases  then  are  materially  different. 
And  we  can  by  no  means  reason  respecting  the  one,  as 
we  do  respecting  the  other.  The  sin  of  Adam  can  af- 
ford no  evidence,  that  his  nature  was  corrupt  from  the 
first.  But  the  sin  of  his  posterity,  circumstanced  as  it 
is,  affords  the  most  conclusive  evidence,  that  they  are, 
from  the  first,  subjects  of  a  corrupt  nature.  Just  as  the 
case  may  be  in  bodily  diseases.  A  man  may  have  a 
consumption,  when  there  is  no  proof  that  it  is  a  native 
or  constitutional  disorder.  But  a  consumption  in  other 
cases  may  be  attended  with  circumstances,  which  prove 
beyond  a  doubt,  that  the  disorder  was  founded  in  the 
original  constitution.  Both  in  regard  to  the  bodily  and 
the  spiritual  disorder,  our  single  inquiry  is,  whether  the 
circumstances  of  the  case  prove  it  to  be  natural.  What 
I  have  said,  Chapter  in,  is  the  substance  of  the  argument, 
by  which  I  prove  the  moral  depravity  of  mankind  to  be 
native.  But  there  is  no  evidence  at  all  that  Adam's  deprav- 
ity was  native.     I  say  then,  we  cannot  reason  from  one  to 


112 

the  other,  because  the  circumstances  of  the  two  are  materi- 
ally different.  1  do  not  rely  on  the  fact,  taken  by  itself, 
that  mankind  are  all  sinners  ;  because  if  there  were  any 
reason  to  suppose  that  mankind  exist  for  a  time  in  a  sin- 
less state,  as  Adam  did,  their  being  sinners  afterwards 
would  not  show  what  their  state  was  originally.  But  it 
is  as  true  of  Adam,  as  of  any  other  man,  that  ev- 
ery sinful  volition  and  act  of  his  presupposed  a  sinful 
disposition,  and  must  have  arisen  from  it.  And  the  first 
existence  of  that  sinful  disposition  in  his  case  is  a 
fact  as  hard  to  be  accounted  for,  as  the  existence  of 
native  depravity  in  his  posterity.  The  commencement 
of  sin  in  both  cases,  as  also  in  the  case  of  the  angels  who 
kept  not  their  first  state,  is  to  be  regarded  as  an  ultimate 
fact  in  God's  empire  ;  a  fact  perfectly  consistent  with 
the  holiness  of  his  character,  and  with  the  principles  of 
moral  agency.  1  should  be  content  to  consider  it  in  this 
light,  though  I  should  be  compelled  to  leave  it  totally 
unexplained,  and  should  find  it  encompassed  with  a  host 
of  difficulties,  still  more  formidable  than  any  I  have  seen. 
But  if  Unitarians  choose  to  call  up  again  the  reasoning 
of  Dr.  Taylor  in  order  to  show  the  weakness  of  one  of 
the  arguments  employed  by  the  Orthodox  ;  1  must  say, 
their  success  in  this  attempt  will  appear  less  complete 
than  they  have  imagined.  It  is  a  principle  founded  on 
the  laws  of  nature,  that  the  fruit  shows  not  only  what 
the  tree  now  is,  but  what  it  was  from  its  origin,  from  its 
first  vegetation,  unless  there  is  evidence  that  it  has  in 
some  way  undergone  a  change  since.  I  do  not  mean  to 
make  an  argument  of  a  simile,  nor  to  carry  the  analogy 
implied  in  it  beyond  due  limits.  But  in  truth,  it  is  as 
plainly  according  to  the  general  constitution  of  heaven, 
to  consider  the  life  of  man  to  be  a  development  of  his 
intellectual  and  moral  nature,   under    the    influence    of 


113 

those  various  causes  which  act  upon  it  from  the  first,  as 
to  consider  the  growth  and  fruit  of  a  tree  to  be  the  de- 
velopment of  its  original  nature,  acted  upon  by  corres- 
pondent causes.  This  principle  holds  good  in  all  cases, 
unless  there  is  proof  of  such  a  change  as  has  been  sug- 
gested above.  - 


CHAPTER  VI. 

I  shall  now  consider  the  manner  in  which  Dr. 
Ware  confutes  several  arguments,  which  the  Orthodox 
derive  from  Scripture  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  de- 
pravity. 

In  my  Letter,  I  cited  Gen.  vi,  5,  not  as  a  direct,  but 
an  indirect  proof  of  the  Orthodox  doctrine  of  depravity. 
My  object  in  quoting  this  particnlar  passage  was  to  il- 
lustrate the  general  nature  of  the  argument  from  the 
Old  Testament.  I  shall  not  take  time  to  expose  again 
the  objection,  which  Dr.  Ware  urges  against  it,  as  it  is 
the  same  with  that,  which  I  particularly  noticed  in  Let- 
ter V.  Dr.  Ware  has  made  no  attempt  to  invalidate 
the  argument,  on  which  I  chiefly  relied  for  the  confirm- 
ation of  my  theory.  I  had  stated,  that  the  Apostle 
quotes  promiscuously  from  the  Old  Testament,  passages 
descriptive  of  the  wickedness  of  mankind  formerly,  as 
equally  applicable  to  the  human  race  at  all  times, 
and  that,  if  the  passages  referred  to  are  not  ap- 
plicable to  mankind  universally,  the  Apostle  has  giv- 
en us  sophistry  instead  of  argument.  My  reasoning  on 
the  subject  is  given  at  length  in  my  fifth  Letter,  to 
which    I  beg  leave  to  refer  the  reader.     It  was    the 


114 

reasoning  on  which  I  rested  for  the  truth  of  my  position; 
and  it  deserved  the  attention  of  Dr.  Ware,  as  much  as 
any  thing  I  had  written.  But  without  any  particular  at- 
tention to  my  reasoning,  he  repeats  the  very  objection 
which  I  had  endeavoured  to  answer.  See  Letters  to  Trini- 
tarians p.  32.  The  passage  in  Gen.  vi.  5-,  he  says,  "re- 
lates not  to  mankind  universally,  but  to  the  degenerate 
race  of  men  of  that  age,  so  remarkably  and  universally 
corrupt,  beyond  all  that  had  gone  before  or  have  follow- 
ed since,  as  to  call  for  the  most  signal  tokens  of  the  ven- 
geance of  heaven." 

I  begin  my  remarks  on  this  quotation  by  saying,  that 
there  is  not  the  least  reason  to  think,  that  the  men  of 
that  age  were  corrupt  beyond  all  who  have  appeared 
since.  There  is  certainly  no  evidence  of  this  from  the 
description  given  of  their  character;  for  the  Bible  con- 
tains many  a  description  of  human  Avickedness,  as  dread- 
ful as  that.  There  is  no  evidence  from  the  fact,  that 
the  world  was  destroyed  by  a  deluge  ;  for  God  might 
intend  to  accomplish  some  important  ends,  by  making 
such  a  display  of  his  holy  vengeance  once,  though  he 
might  not,  on  account  of  equal  or  even  greater  cor- 
ruption, think  proper  to  repeat  it.  It  is  clear  too, 
that  many  portions  of  the  human  race  have  suffer- 
ed more  distressing  calamities,  and  of  course  more  dread- 
ful tokens  of  the  divine  vengeance,6  than  being  destroy- 
ed by  a  deluge.  Besides,  there  is  no  probability  from 
the  circumstances  of  the  case,  that  men,  at  that  early 
period  of  the  world,  and  with  privileges  comparatively 
small,  could  be  guilty  in  so  high  a  degree,  as  men  of- 
ten have  been  since.  And  in  addition  to  all  this,  our  Sa- 
viour expressly  cautions  us  against  inferring  the  degree  of 
men's  wickedness  from  the  evils  they  suffer  in  the  pre- 
sent life.     See  Luke  xiii.  1 — 5.     So  that,   from   the  sig- 


115 

nal  tokens  of  divine  vengeance,  which  the  contemporaries 
of  Noah  experienced,  we  could  not  safely  conclude  that 
they  were  corrupt  above  all  others. 

This  however  is   a  point  of  minor  consequence.     To 
invalidate  my  reasoning,  Dr.  Ware  first  remarks,  that  the 
text,  quoted  from  Gen.  vi.  5,  "relates  not  to  mankind  uni- 
versally, but  to  the  degenerate  race  of  men  of  that  age." 
He  means  by  this  remark  to  prove,  that  we  cannot,  in  any 
proper  sense,  apply  such  passages  to  mankind  generally. 
I  had  attempted  to  show  that  we  can  learn  what  human 
nature  is,  or  what  man  is,  from   the  highest  descriptions 
of  human  wickedness  found  in  the  Old  Testament ;  that 
those  descriptions  are  substantially  true  in  relation  to  all 
men  ;  not  that  all  men  are  criminal  in  the  same  degree, 
but  that  all  have    the  same  nature,  the  same  original  pro- 
pensities, the  same  ingredients  of  character.     In  all  this  he 
thinks  [  expressed  myself  rashly  or  carelessly.  "Are  we," 
he  says,   much  in  the  manner  of  Dr.  Turnbull, — "  are 
we  to  consider  those  places,   which,  singled  out  and  dis- 
tinguished  from  all  others,  are  expressly    declared   to 
have  been   destroyed  for  their  enormous  and  incorrigi- 
ble wickedness,  as  fair  representatives  of  the  usual  state 
and  character  of  the  human  race  ?     People,  who    were 
ordered  to  be  wholly  extirpated  for  the  very    purpose 
of  stopping  the  contagion  of  their  vices  &c,  ?     Are  Pha- 
raoh, Jeroboam,  and  Judas  fair  examples  and  represen- 
tatives of  human   nature?"      I   answer,   yes.     For  had 
they  any   nature    but  the    human  ?     If  they   were  not 
examples    of    human    nature,    of    what    nature     were 
they  examples  ? — of  some    nature   above    the    human, 
or  below  it  ?     The  actions  of  an  individual  man   always 
result  from  his  own  nature,  influenced  as  it  is    by  exter- 
nal causes.     But  his  own  nature  is  human  nature.     And 
have  not  others  the  same  ?     And  admitting  the   moral 


116 

nature  of  men  to  be  the  same,  may  we  not  satisfactorily 
account  for  the  variety  of  characters  among  them,  from 
the  different  circumstances  in  which  they  are  placed, 
and  the  different  combination  of  causes  under  which  they 
act  ?  Or  are  we  to  resort  to  the  strange  supposition, 
that  all  the  different  degrees  of  wickedness,  which  men 
exhibit,  are  really  to  be  traced  back  to  a  corresponding 
difference  in  their  original  character?  That  is,  are  we 
to  suppose,  that  Pharaoh,  Jeroboam  and  Judas  had  orig- 
inally a  moral  nature  as  much  worse  than  Moses,  David, 
and  Paul,  as  their  ultimate  characters  were  worse  ? 
Nothing  could  be  more  unphilosophical ;  nothing  more 
contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  and  the  common  sense  of 
Christians. 

Now  just  try  the  correctness  of  the  principle  which 
Dr.  Ware's  reasoning  involves  ;  namely,  that  the  account 
which  the  Bible  gives  of  the  wickedness  of  men  at  one 
period,  or  in  one  country,  does  not  make  a  fair  display  of 
human  nature,  and  does  not  show,  what  is  substantially 
the  character  of  men  at  any  other  period,  or  in  any  oth- 
er country.  If  this  principle  is  correct,  of  what  use  to 
us  are  the  writings  of  historians,  either  sacred  or  pro- 
fane ?  It  has  generally  been  held  up  by  the  best  wri- 
ters, as  a  peculiar  advantage  of  history,  that  it  gives  us 
useful  lessons  respecting  human  nature,  or  makes  us  ac- 
quainted with  the  character  of  our  species.  But  if  Dr. 
Ware  is  right,  this  cannot  be  admitted.  For  according 
to  his  opinion,  history  only  gives  us  a  description  of  the 
passions,  and  dispositions,  and  conduct  of  particular  men 
or  societies  of  men,  who  had  no  common  nature,  and  to 
whom  no  one  can  reasonably  suppose  that  we  bear 
any  moral  likeness.  We  may  read  of  the  envy  and  mal- 
ice of  Cain  ;  but  it  is  of  no  use  to  us,  as  it  cannot  be 
supposed  that  men  nowadays  have  any  tendency  in  their 


117 

nature  to  envy  and  hate  others  who  are  better  than  they. 
And  when  the  Apostle  John  referred  to  the  conduct  of 
Cain,  for  the  purpose  of  counselling  and  warning  those 
to  whom  he  wrote ;  he  must  have  done  it  inadvertently, 
unless  there  happened  to  be  something  in  their  charac- 
ter, which  was  different  from  what  was  common,  and 
which  would  render  such  a  procedure  suitable.  History 
may  tell  us  of  the  great  corruption  and  violence  of  the 
antediluvian  world.  But  at  this  day,  we  can  have  little 
concern  with  what  was  so  distant,  except  to  gratify  cu- 
riosity. For  it  would  be  very  unreasonable  to  suppose 
that  there  is  any  thing  in  men  generally,  especially  in 
those  who  are  born  in  a  Christian  land,  which  would 
lead  them  into  the  same  excesses,  even  if  they  should  be 
placed  in  the  same  circumstances.  We  may  read  the 
history  of  the  children  of  Israel  in  Egypt,  at  the  Red 
Sea,  at  Sinai,  in  the  wilderness,  and  in  the  promised 
land,  and  our  astonishment  may  be  excited  at  their 
fickleness,  unbelief,  ingratitude,  and  obduracy.  But  what 
is  all  this  to  us,  who  live  in  these  better  days,  who  are 
born  Christians,  and  who  cannot,  with  the  least  degree 
of  justice,  be  charged  with  any  disposition  or  tendency  in 
our  nature  like  theirs?  Admit  that  they  were  fickle, 
unbelieving,  ungrateful,  and  obdurate.  Does  that  show 
what  we  are,  or  what  we  should  be  likely  to  be  in  simi- 
lar circumstances  ?  Are  we  to  learn  the  character  of 
human  nature  generally,  from  their  nature  ?  "  Would 
you  go  to  a  lazar-house  or  hospital  to  know  what  is  the 
usual  state  of  human  health  ?"  And  what  shall  we 
think  of  the  Apostle  to  the  Romans,  who  says,  "  Whatso- 
ever things  were  written  aforetime,  were  written  for  our 
learning;"  and  who  actually  uses  the  passages  of  the 
Old  Testament  which  were  descriptive  of  the  wicked- 
16 


118 

ness  of  the  Israelites  at  particular  times,  as  applicable 
to  men  generally. 

History  tells  us  of  the  ambition,  despotism,  and  cru- 
elty of  wicked  kings  and  commanders.  But  are  men, 
holding  similar  stations  now,  to  be  suspected  of  any  pro- 
pensity to  similar  vices  ?  Indeed,  as  the  moral  consti- 
tution of  different  parts  of  the  human  species,  or  the  ba- 
sis of  their  character  is  not  the  same  ;  no  individual  can 
be  presumed  to  have  any  thing  like  what  appears  in 
any  other.  If  I  see  some  of  my  neighbours  proud,  self- 
ish, envious,  revengeful,  in  willing  servitude  to  their  pas- 
sions ;  I  am  not  Warranted  to  conclude  that  any  others 
have  similar  traits  of  character.  Those  few  men  may 
be  the  only  ones  in  a  whole  nation,  who  have  their  na- 
ture so  infected.  Of  the  thousands  and  millions  of  their 
contemporaries,  supposing  them  placed  under  the  influ- 
ence of  the  same  external  circumstances,  there  may  not 
be  a  single  individual,  possessing  radically  the  same  dis- 
positions. And  even  if  it  should  be  found,  that  they  all 
have  substantially  the  same  traits  of  character  ;  that 
they  all  in  fact  show  themselves  in  a  higher  or  lower  de- 
gree proud,  selfish,  envious,  revengeful,  slaves  to  their 
passions  ;  still  I  am  not  to  suppose  that  they  have  pre- 
viously any  likeness  of  moral  nature,  which  occasions 
this  likeness  of  visible  character.  It  may  be  quite  an  ac- 
cidental thing,  or  it  may  be  owing  to  some  unfortunate 
motion  of  free-will,  happening  to  be  the  same  in  all,  that 
they  have  come  universally  to  be  subject  to  the  same 
corrupt  passions.  It  is  very  certain  that  the  sinful  pas- 
sions or  conduct  of  individuals,  or  of  a  nation,  or  of  the 
whole  world  from  generation  to  generation,  does  not 
show  at  all  what  the  nature  of  man  is.  The  conduct  of 
the  antediluvians  does  not  show  this,  nor  the  conduct  of 
heathen  nations,   nor  of  the  Israelites,  nor  of  Christen- 


119 

dom  generally.  Indeed  there  is  no  common  nature 
among  men.  Human  nature  in  one  may  have  no  sub- 
stantial likeness  to  human  nature  in  another  ;  and  what 
is  said  truly  of  some  cannot  be  in  any  sense  safely  ap- 
plied to  others.  The  description  which  was  given  of 
men  in  the  Psalms  and  in  the  Prophets,  cannot  be  a  true 
description  of  other  generations  or  societies  of  men.  And 
when  the  Apostle,  Rom.  iii,  applied  what  had  been 
said  of  men  in  seasons  of  uncommon  corruption,  to  the 
generality  of  those  who  lived  in  his  day,  did  he  not  do 
it  rashlv?  Or  if  he  actually  knew  that  the  whole  mul- 
titude, on  whom  he  heaped  the  reproaches  contained  in 
that  chapter,  were  so  uncommonly  depraved  as  to  de- 
serve them;  it  would  still  be  the  height  of  injustice  to 
suppose  they  are  deserved  by  men  in  general  at  the 
present  day.  And  according  to  the  same  scheme,  there 
is  not  one  of  all  the  declarations  of  the  Bible  respecting 
human  corruption  and  guilt,  which  can  be  safely  applied 
to  the  men  of  this  generation.  For  those  declarations, 
whatever  appearance  of  universality  some  of  them  may 
have,  were  all  made  with  a  view  to  men  who  lived  in 
times  very  distant  from  the  present,  and  exhibited  a 
grossness  of  character  now  seldom  found.  The  Apos- 
tle Paul  declared  the  carnal  mind  to  be  enmity  against 
God,  and  represented  the  Ephesian  converts  as  having 
been  enemies  to  God.  But  it  was  a  carnal  mind  which 
existed  and  yielded  its  hateful  fruits  at  that  particular 
time.  Who  will  be  so  uncandid  as  to  look  upon  the 
bulk  of  mankind  now,  especially  in  Christian  lands,  as 
having  that  carnal  mind  which  is  enmity  against  God  f 
We  find  also  that  Christ  said,  "  that  which  is  born  of  the 
flesh  is  flesh,"  and  on  the  ground  of  human  corruption, 
thus  expressed,  asserted  the  necessity  of  regeneration. 
But  he  must  have  said  it    with   reference  to  that  carnal 


120 

race  of  men,  by  whom  he  Avas  surrounded.  Of  those 
who  are  born  among  us  now,  it  cannot  be  said  that  they 
are  flesh  in  any  such  sense,  as  implies  the  necessity  of 
being  bom  again;  any  more  than  David's  singular  ac- 
knowledgment that  he  was  "  shapen  in  iniquity  and 
conceived  in  sin," — made  in  very  peculiar  circumstances, 
and  under  great  depression  of  spirits,  can  be  understood 
as  signifying  any  thing  in  regard  to  the  native  character 
of  men  generally.  The  Bible  contains  commands,  ex- 
hortations, and  warnings  to  saints  and  sinners,  which  were 
occasioned  by  the  depravity  of  their  hearts,  and  referred 
directly  to  their  sinful  passions  and  habits.  But  such 
commands,  exhortations,  and  warnings  may  be  altogether 
inapplicable  to  us,  on  account  of  our  exemption  from  that 
depravity  which  would  render  them  suitable  to  our  case. 
The  Apostle  says;  "  they  that  are  Christ's  have  crucified 
the  flesh  with  the  affections  and  lusts."  "  If  any  man  be  in 
Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature."  He  says  all  this  of  those 
Christians  who  lived  in  his  day.  To  them  it  properly  relat- 
ed. But  it  cannot  be  supposed  essential  to  the  character  of 
the  present  generation  of  Christians,  that  they  should  be 
the  subjects  of  any  such  change.  Indeed  we  must  go  still 
farther.  To  give  consistency  throughout  to  the  system, 
on  the  ground  of  which  these  remarks  have  proceeded, 
we  must  maintain  that  we  are  under  no  obligation  to  obey 
the  commands  of  the  decalogue.  For  to  whom  did  God 
speak,  when  he  said,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  be- 
fore me  ;  thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  any  graven  image  ; 
thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  God  in  vain ;  remember  the 
Sabbath  day,"  &c  ?  Did  he  not  speak  to  those  particular 
persons  who  then  surrounded  the  holy  mount  ?  Is  it 
said,  or  intimated,  that  men  of  future  ages  should  come 
under  the  obligation  of  these  strict  and  holy  commands? 
Has  God  ever  spoken  particularly  to  us,  and  required  us 


121 

to  observe  the  precepts  of  the  decalogue  ?  What  au- 
thority then  have  the  ministers  of  religion  to  urge  the 
high  obligation  of  these  precepts  upon  us,  just  as  though 
God  had  actually  spoken  to  us  in  these  last  days,  and 
given  us  commands,  as  he  did  the  Israelites  encamped 
at  the  foot  of  Sinai  ?  Surely  when  they  do  this,  they 
overlook  the  vast  difference  between  us,  who  live  in  an 
age  of  such  intellectual  and  moral  refinement,  and  the 
posterity  of  Jacob,  at  that  time  in  so  uncultivated  a  state, 
and  just  let  loose  from  "  the  house  of  bondage."  We 
cannot  look  to  any  of  the  commands  which  God  gave 
them,  to  learn  what  he  requires  of  us.  Even  supposing 
that,  by  the  authority  of  Prophets  and  Apostles,  they 
were  enjoined  on  other  generations  of  men  who  came  af- 
ter; where  is  the  Prophet  or  Apostle,  who  has  expressly 
declared  that  men,  living  in  the  nineteenth  century,  and  in 
this  particular  part  of  the  world,  would  all  be  under  ob- 
ligation to  obey  those  very  commands,  which  were  en- 
joined upon  men  thousands  of  years  ago  ? — The  same  al- 
so as  to  the  New  Testament.  Jesus  said,  repent.  But 
he  said  it  to  his  contemporaries,  not  to  us.  He  said  too, 
"He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved  ;  and  he  that  believ- 
eth  not  shall  be  damned."  But  that  awful  alternative 
was  pressed  upon  that  generation  of  Jews,  not  upon  us. 
And  in  fact,  all  parts  of  the  Bible  were  addressed  to  men 
of  other  times,  and  in  other  circumstances  ;  and  there  is 
no  doctrine  contained  in  it  respecting  the  present  state 
or  future  prospects  of  men,  how  true  soever  it  might 
have  been  when  first  declared,  which  can  be  assumed  as 
true  and  applicable  now  ;  and  no  command,  however  just 
and  important  in  relation  to  those,  to  whom  it  was  first  ad- 
dressed, which  can  bind  us;  and  no  warning  of  danger,  how- 
ever alarming  once,  which  can  properly  alarm  us  ;  and 
no  promise   of  good,  however  cheering  and   animating 


122 

once,  which  can  cheer  and  animate  us.  The  whole  Bi- 
ble, as  really  as  that  part  which  describes  human  cor- 
ruption, was  spoken  and  written  in  other  times,  and  to 
another  race  of  men  ;  and  nothing  short  of  a  new  reve- 
lation can  convince  us,  that  the  book  can  be  of  any 
practical  use  to  us,  except  to  inform  us  what  the  in- 
habitants of  the  world  once  were,  and  how  God  once 
treated  them. 

I  hope  to  be  excused  for  exhibiting  at  such  length  what 
seems  plainly  implied  in  the  system,  which  has  here  come 
under  notice,  and  what  are  its  legitimate  consequences. 
The  principle,  on  which  that  system  sets  aside  the  de- 
scriptions of  human  depravity  contained  in  the  Bible,  as 
not  in  any  way  applicable  to  us,  would,  if  closely  adher- 
ed to,  lead  on  to  all  the  extremities  above  suggested.  It 
would  set  aside  one  part  of  the  Bible,  as  well  as  another. 
It  would  invalidate,  in  regard  to  us,  the  doctrinal  and 
preceptive  part,  as  well  as  that  part  which  is  descrip- 
tive of  man's  depravity.  The  same  principle,  which 
would  free  us  from  the  mortification  of  applying  to  our- 
selves the  high  charges  of  corruption  and  guilt,  contained 
in  the  Bible,  would  also  deprive  us  of  its  high  promises 
of  divine  mercy.  If  any  man  who  sets  aside  the  account 
of  human  wickedness  found  in  the  Scriptures,  as  inappli- 
cable to  us,  still  thinks  the  moral  precepts  applicable  ; 
I  ask,  on  what  principle  such  an  application  is  founded? 
Is  there  any  express  declaration  in  the  Scriptures  them- 
selves, that  the  moral  precepts,  which  were  given  thou- 
sands of  years  ago,  are  to  be  thus  understood  ?  Is  it  any 
where  in  the  Bible  said,  that  the  commands  of  God,  there 
announced,  should  be  obligatory  upon  men  in  every  coun- 
try and  in  every  age  ?  Not  a  word  of  this.  In  what 
way  then  are  we  satisfied,  that  every  human  being  is  un- 
der the  same  perfect  obligation  to  obey  the  moral  pre- 


123 

cepts  of  the  Bible,  as  if  God  actually  addressed  them  to 
him  in  particular?     How  is  it  that  we  immediately  con- 
clude that  all   men,  now  living,  are  proper  subjects  of  the 
same  law  which  God  gave  to  men  in  former  times,  and 
feel  it  to  be  right  for  us  to  enjoin  it  upon  them   to  love 
God  supremely,  to  love  their  neighbours  as  themselves, 
and  to  keep  all  the  precepts  of  the  Bible  ?     When  the 
ministers  of  Christ  go  to  pagan  nations,  how  is  it  that 
they  feel  themselves  authorized  to  do  just  what  the  apos- 
tles did, — to  call  upon  all  men  to  forsake  the  vanities  of 
heathenism,  to  repent,  and  to  worship  the   true  God? 
What  could  render  all  this  proper,  but  the  obvious  prin- 
ciple that,  as  to  the  essential  properties  of  moral  agents, 
men  in  all  ages  and  climates  are  alike  ?     Whenever  we 
meet  a  human  being,   we  instantly  take  it  for  granted, 
that  he  is  a  moral  agent  like  ourselves,  and  like   those 
who  first  received  the  law,  and  that  the  law  is  as  suita- 
ble to  him,  as  it  was  to  them.     When  we  see  an  infant, 
we  take  it  for  granted,  as  we  have  a  right  to  do,  that  he 
is  born  to  be  a  moral  agent,  and  that  it  will   be   proper 
to  inculcate  the  divine  precepts  upon  him,  as  soon  as  he 
can  understand  them  ;  just  as  proper  as  though  the  divine 
Lawgiver  expressly  directed  us  to  inculcate  them  upon 
that  particular  child.     To  all  this  I  think  the  opposers  of 
Orthodoxy  would  readily  agree.    But  it  is  upon  the  same 
general  principle  that  I  proceed  in  my  reasoning,  with 
respect  to  the  subject  under  discussion.     There  is  as  real 
evidence  that  men  in  all  ages  and  climates  are    alike    in 
regard  to  the  essential  traits  of  moral  character,  as  in  re- 
gard to  the  properties  which  constitute  them  proper  sub- 
jects of  law.     This  is  in  truth  the  practical  judgment  of 
men  universally.      Who  does  not  know  enough  of  human 
nature  to  satisfy  him,  that  it  always  has  the  same  essen- 
tial attributes?     Who  doubts  that  a  man,  whom  he  now 


124 

for  the  first  time  meets,  will  exhibit  the  same  character- 
istics, as  other  men — the  same  substantially,  though  per- 
haps not  in  form  ?  The  man  whom  we  never  saw  be- 
fore, we  doubt  not  has  pride,  and  that,  in  circumstances 
which  are  likely  to  occur,  he  will  show  pride, — not  in 
this  or  that  particular  way,  but  in  some  way,  according 
to  circumstances.  We  doubt  not  he  has  a  culpable  self- 
love,  which  will  lead  him,  in  a  manner  not  to  be  justified, 
to  prefer  his  own  interest  to  that  of  others;  a  self-love 
therefore,  which  will  require  strong  motives,  and  watch- 
ful discipline,  and  powerful  influence  from  above  to  sub- 
due it.  We  doubt  not  he  has  a  tendency  to  resent  an 
injury,  and  to  recompense  evil  for  evil ;  and  to  envy  those 
above  him,  especially  if  their  superiority  operates  sensi- 
bly to  his  disadvantage.  And  so  of  the  rest.  If  in  any 
case  we  should  regulate  our  conduct  towards  particular 
men  upon  any  other  principle,  than  that  they  are  sub- 
ject to  the  same  corrupt  affections  with  others,  and 
that,  acting  under  the  influence  of  similar  causes,  they 
are  likely  to  exhibit  similar  traits  of  character  ;  we  should 
be  charged,  and  very  justly,  with  being  deficient  in  the 
knowledge  of  our  own  species.  And  if  any  man  thinks 
himself  exempt  from  the  moral  depravity  which  men 
have  generally  exhibited,  and  forms  his  judgment  and  his 
maxims  of  conduct  in  regard  to  himself,  on  the  principle, 
that  he  has  little  or  none  of  the  wickedness  which  has 
disgraced  and  ruined  others  ;  he  gives  conclusive  proof 
of  self-ignorance. 

It  is  on  this  plain  principle  of  the  sameness  of  human 
nature  in  all  ages  and  countries,  that  I  would  apply  the 
mortifying  description  of  human  wickedness,  found  in  the 
Bible,  to  men  of  the  present  generation  ;  just  as  the 
Apostle  applied  the  description,  which  had  been  given 
of  other  generations  of  men,  to  those  who  lived  in  his 


125 

day.  It  is  on  this  principle  that  I  have  said,  we  may 
draw  practical  instruction  in  regard  to  ourselves  from  the 
history  of  Pharaoh,  of  Saul,  of  Jeroboam,  and  of  the  Jews 
who  crucified  the  Son  of  God.  That  history  shows  me  not 
only  what  was  in  those  particular  men,  but  what  is  in  hu- 
man nature,  what  is  in  my  nature.  It  shows  me  what 
is  man.  In  ourselves  we  may  find  those  very  sinful  dis- 
positions which,  after  having  been  strengthened  and  ma- 
tured by  various  causes,  constituted  those  men  just  what 
they  were  ;  and  which,  operating  in  similar  circumstan- 
ces, would  render  us  like  them.  We  are  as  truly  like 
them  in  a  moral  view,  as  a  man  in  an  intellectual  view, 
is  like  those  who  have  risen  somewhat  above  him  in  the 
acquisition  of  knowledge,  but  whom  he  would  have 
equalled,  had  he  been  in  their  circumstances. 

Dr.  Ware  tells  us,  what  indeed  deserves  special  at- 
tention, that  the  very  passages  of  Scripture,  which  rep- 
resent men  as  universally  corrupt,  "  teach  us  with  what 
qualifications  they  are  to  be  understood."  He  refers 
particularly  to  Psalm  xiv,  and  says,  "  that  while  it  asserts 
in  the  strong  language  of  emotion  and  eastern  hyperbole, 
that  all  are  gone  aside, — that  there  is  none  that  doeth 
good,  no,  not  one  ;  it  goes  on  to  speak  of  a  generation 
of  the  righteous.'*  I  might  mention  it  as  a  fact  of  the 
same  kind,  that  an  exception  was  made  in  favour  of  Noah, 
Lot,  and  others,  who  lived  in  the  midst  of  abounding 
wickedness.  And  the  Orthodox  make  just  such  an  ex- 
ception now.  Wrhen  they  understand  the  language  of 
the  Bible,  which  was  descriptive  of  the  great  wickedness 
of  men  formerly,  as  expressive  of  the  universal  depravi- 
ty of  those  who  live  at  the  present  day ;  they  have  no 
doubt  there  arc  many  exceptions  ; — many  good  men,  who 
obey  God,  and  are  entitled  to  the  happiness  of  heaven* 
The  question  is.  how  these  two  representations  of  Scrip- 

17 


126 

ture  can  consist  together,  and  in  what  manner  we  are 
to  modify  the  sense  of  the  one  by  the  other.     Here  we 
come  to  the  grand  principle  of  interpretation ;    namely; 
that  the  Bible,  taken  as  a  whole,  must  explain  itself.     How 
then  does  the  Bible  account  for  the  fact,  that  some  men 
are  holy,  while  the  generality  are  sinful  ?     Does  it  ever 
represent  them  to  be  holy  by  nature  ?    No,  never.     It 
may  sometimes  speak  of  their  being  holy,  as  a  matter  of 
fact  simply,  without  assigning  the  cause  of  it.     But  in 
other  places,  it  does,  with  the  greatest   explicitness,  ac- 
count for  this  fact.     It  represents  the  children  of  God 
as  being  holy,  in  consequence  of  regeneration.     They 
who  are  in  Christ,  are  new  creatures.     Old  things  are  pass- 
ed away  ;  all  things  are  become  new.     The  Bible  teaches 
all  who  are  holv,  to  ascribe  their  holiness  to  the  new- 
creating  Spirit  of  God  ;  while  it  represents  their  natural 
character  to  be  like  that  of  others,  and  describes  it  in 
the  same  language.     So  that  the  exception  made  in  their 
favour  does  not  respect  their  own  native  character,  but 
the  new  character  which  they  possess  in  consequence  of 
being  born  of  the  Spirit.     The  principle  I  am  contend- 
ing   for,  may    be    easily  illustrated   by    natural    things. 
It    may    be     said    of    a    certain    species    of  shrub    or 
tree,  for  example,  the  thorn-bush,  that  it  bears  no  useful 
fruit;   although  in  consequence  of  a  scion  being  ingraft- 
ed into  it  from  another  tree,  it  may  bear  fruit  that  is  de- 
licious   and    salutary.       Still   the  proper  nature  of  the 
shrub,  and  the  just  description  of  it,  remain  the  same  ; 
and  we  never  think  of  representing  it  as  a  property  of 
the  thorn-bush,  that  it  bears  delicious  fruit.     Thus  in  the 
passages  above  referred  to,  the  universal  terms   which 
describe  human  wickedness,  instead  of  being  limited  as 
Dr.  Ware  proposes,  are  truly  applicable  to  all  men  with- 
out exception,  in  regard  to  their  own  proper,  original  char- 


127 

acter.  Those  who  are  now  Christians,  are  naturally  sub- 
jects of  the  same  depravity  with  others  ;  and  their  being 
different  now  is  owing  to  "  the  washing  of  regeneration 
and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Here  we  are  furnished  with  an  easy  answer  to  some 
of  Dr.  Ware's  questions,  p.  38.     "  Let  it  be  asked,"  he 
says,  "  why  the  cruelty  and  obstinacy  of  Pharaoh,  rather 
than  the  humanity,  and  piety,  and  meekness  of  Moses  ; 
why  the  idolatry,  and  unprincipled  ambition  and  selfish- 
ness of  Jeroboam,  rather  than  the  piety,  and  tenderness 
of  conscience,  and  public  spirit  of  Josiah;   why  the  sin- 
gle  wretch  who  was  so  base  as  to  betray  his  master, 
rather  than  the  eleven   who   were  true  and  faithful   to 
him,  should  be  selected  as  specimens  of  the  race  to  which 
they  belong?"     The  answer  is,  that  all  these  vices  and 
iniquities  are  the  natural,  spontaneous  growth  of  human 
nature.     They  are  what  the  Apostle  calls  "  the  fruits  of 
the  flesh  ;" — of  that  flesh  which,  according  to  John  iii.  6, 
belongs  to  us  by  our  natural   birth  ;    while   the  virtues 
enumerated  are  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  or  the  effects  of 
that  divine  influence,  by  which  men  are  delivered  from 
their  natural  character,  and  made  new  creatures.     Those 
men  are  justly  selected,  as  specimens  of  the  race  to  which 
they  belong,  who  are  just  what  their  own  proper  nature 
makes  them,  or  whose  traits  of  character  result  from 
their  own  moral  constitution  or  nature,  unchanged  by  the 
Spirit  of  God.     But  it  would  be  obviously  unjust  to  se- 
lect, as  specimens  of  our  race,  or  of  the  moral  character 
which  properly  belongs  to  us,  those  who  are  what  they 
are,  not  by  nature,  but  by  grace,  or  by  the  new-creating 
Spirit  of  God.     And  if  the  Bible  is  made  its  own  inter- 
preter, this  must  be  allowed  to  be  fact  with  regard  to 
every  human  being  who  is  the  subject  of  holiness.     But 
the  case  which  Dr.  Ware  afterwards  brings  into  view,  is 


128 

altogether  different.  He  asks,  "  would  you  select  the 
period  of  seven  years'  famine,  as  an  example  of  the  usu- 
al fertility  of  Egypt  ?  The  desolating  pestilence  in  the 
days  of  David,  as  a  fair  specimen  of  the  salubrity  of  the 
climate  of  Israel  ?"  I  answer,  no.  Because  the  famine 
does  not  show  the  proper  character  of  the  soil  of  Egypt, 
nor  the  pestilence,  of  the  climate  of  Israel.  They  were 
real  exceptions  to  what  was  natural;  and  Dr.  Ware  can- 
not justly  adduce  them,  as  he  does,  unless  he  can  show, 
that  great  depravity  is  as  foreign  to  the  moral  nature  of 
man,  as  the  famine  was  to  the  soil  in  one  case,  and  the 
pestilence  to  the  climate  in  the  other. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Dr.  Ware's  reply  to  the  argument  from  John  iii.  3.     Rom.  v.  12.     Ephes.  ii.  3. 

Dr.  Ware  is  convinced  that  the  universal  necessity 
of  regeneration,  asserted  in  John  iii.  3,  may  consist  with 
original  innocency.  Still,  in  his  apprehension,  the  pas- 
sage implies  "  the  absence  or  want  of  that  which  was 
necessary  to  becoming  a  subject  of  the  kingdom  of  God  ;" 
p.  41  ;  or  as  he  expresses  it,  p.  42,  "that  men  do  not 
possess  by  birth  that  character  of  personal  holiness, 
which  is  necessary  to  their  being  Christians."  Let  the 
reader  consider  a  moment  the  consistency  between  this, 
and  what  is  found  in  other  places.  Here,  he  says  of  all 
who  are  born  into  the  world  in  every  age,  that  they  are 
by  birth  destitute  of  that  holiness  which  is  necessary  to 
their  being  Christians.  But  soon  after,  p.  47,  he  affirms, 
that  "  those  now  born  into  the  world  in  Christian  lands, 
are   as   the   Ephesians  were    after  their  conversion  to 


129 

Christianity,  saved — quickened — fellow-citizens  of  the 
saints."  What  he  has  written  on  this  point,  taken  to- 
gether, stands  thus.  According  to  one  place,  men  by  their 
birth  receive  no  moral  character.  According  to  another, 
they  are  destitute  of  that  which  is  necessary  to  their  be- 
coming subjects  of  God's  kingdom.  And  according 
to  a  third,  "Jews  and  Gentiles  were  by  nature, 
what  they  were  before  they  became  Christians."  But 
here,  p.  47,  men  are  Christians  by  birth.  In  that  very 
state  in  which  they  are  born,  instead  of  being  as  before 
described,  without  a  moral  character  of  any  kind,  they 
have  a  character  that  is  good.  Instead  of  wanting  that 
which  is  necessary  to  their  becoming  subjects  of  the. 
kingdom  of  God,  as  before,  they  are  by  their 
birth,  of  the  household  of  God,  fellow-heirs  with  the 
saints.  Instead  of  being  by  their  birth  destitute  of  holi- 
ness, they  are  subjects  of  holiness,  quickened,  sanctified, 
as  the  Ephesians  were  after  they  became  Christians. 
Little  children  or  infants,  generally,  instead  of  being 
mere  human  beings,  without  any  disposition  or  propen- 
sity whatever,  "are  what  men  are  to  become  by  regen- 
eration." p.  31. 

I  hope  the  reader  will  not  attribute  these  contradic- 
tions to  the  fault  of  Dr.  Ware's  understanding,  so  much 
as  to  the  fault  of  the  system,  which  he  has  the  misfortune 
to  defend.  A  man  like  him  would  not  expose  himself  in 
this  manner,  if  his  cause  did  not  mislead  him.  With 
this  apology  for  him,  let  me  proceed  to  a  few  more  ob- 
servations on  these  remarkable  passages,  compared  to- 
gether. 

In  p.  41,  men  are  represented  as  "reasonable,  account- 
able beings  by  their  natural  birth."  If  accountable  be- 
ings, they  are  moral  agents,  they  are  under  the  divine 
law,  and  must  be   judged  according  to  that  law.     And 


130 

this  is  the  same  as  saying,  they  will  be  condemned,  if 
they  are  not  conformed  to  the  law,  and  approved,  if  con- 
formed to  it.  But  while  treating  the  same  subject  in 
other  places,  our  Author  gives  us  "  reasonable,  account- 
able beings,"  or  moral  agents,  who  have  nothing  in  their 
disposition  or  character  which  is  either  right  or  wrong, 
and  nothing  for  which  they  can  be  judged.  Accounta- 
ble beings,  without  any  thing,  either  good  or  bad,  for 
which  they  are  accountable  !  Moral  agents,  without  mo- 
ral affections! 

According  to  Dr.  Ware's  statements,  it  would  seem 
that  the  circumstances  of  our  birth  have  an  astonishing 
and  mysterious  efficacy  as  to  the  formation  of  moral 
character.  Those  who  are  born  in  Christian  lands  are, 
by  birth,  what  the  converted  Ephesians  were, — Chris- 
tians, children  of  God,  heirs  of  heaven.  But  the  moment 
you  pass  the  line  which  bounds  Christendom,  and  enter 
a  pagan  land,  you  find  it  quite  different.  There,  in  con- 
sequence of  an  arrangement  of  divine  providence, in  which 
human  beings  could  have  no  agency,  and  over  which 
they  could  have  no  power,  they  are  born  without  any 
moral  disposition  ;  and  of  course  are  destitute  of  that 
holiness,  which  is  necessary  to  their  being  admitted  into 
Christ's  kingdom  ;  so  that  it  is  plainly  necessary  that 
they  should  be  born  again, — should  undergo  "  a  great 
moral  change,"  and  form  "  a  new  character."  But  here 
in  Christendom,  it  is  not  so.  Either  the  atmosphere  of 
a  Christian  land,  or  the  character  and  privileges  of  their 
parents,  or  some  other  causes  have  so  salutary  an  influ- 
ence upon  their  birth,  that  they  possess  at  once,  as  soon 
as  they  are  born,  the  character  of  converts.  They  are 
sanctified,  quickened,  and  members  of  God's  household, 
by  their  natural  birth.  So  that,  in  regard  to  them,  re- 
generation is  not  necessary.     They  are  as  good  by  their 


131 

first  birth,  as  the  Ephesians  were,  after  they  were 
"born  again." — Now  we  should  be  much  indebted  to 
Dr.  Ware,  if  he  would  tell  us  by  what  arguments,  from 
Scripture  or  reason,  he  supports  such  an  opinion  as  this. 
He  indeed  makes  it  a  subject  of  strong  affirmation.  Re- 
ferring to  the  description  of  the  converted  Ephesians,  he 
says;  "All  this  language  was  applied  to  the  Ephesians 
universally  after  their  conversion,  and  all  of  it  is  as  appli- 
cable now  universally  to  those  who  are  Christians  by  birth." 
We  receive  his  affirmation,  as  showing  clearly  what  his 
opinion  is.  This  is  all  we  would  ask  of  him  in  a  similar 
case ;  and  this  no  doubt  is  all  he  would  ask  of  us. 

Dr.  Ware  considers  the  whole  passage,  Rom.  v,  as  so 
intricate  and  obscure,  that  it  can  afford  no  solid  support 
to  any  doctrine,  farther  than  it  is  explained  by  other 
passages;  and  he  seems  to  think  I  must  view  it  in  this 
light.  I  did  indeed  say  that  the  passage  is  "in  some  re- 
spects very  obscure."  And  so  it  may  be,  though  in  other 
respects  it  is  very  clear.  It  is  surely  nothing  uncommon, 
either  in  inspired  or  uninspired  writings,  that  a  passage 
should  contain  a  particular  doctrine  with  perfect  plain- 
ness and  certainty,  while  its  import,  in  regard  to  some 
other  points,  can  hardly  be  ascertained.  Such  in  many 
instances  is  the  nature  of  the  subject,  that  while,  in  some 
parts  it  is  plain  and  obvious,  in  other  parts  it  is  necessa- 
rily obscure.  The  passage,  Rom.  v.  12 — 21,  does,  in 
my  view,  teach  an  important  Christian  doctrine  more 
plainly  and  fully,  and  in  language  less  capable  of  being 
misconstrued,  than  any  other  passage  of  Scripture. 
The  writer  declares  his  main  doctrine  again  and  again. 
He  declares  it  in  a  great  variety  of  forms,  and  with  great 
strength  of  expression.  He  treats  his  principal  subject. 
as  though  he  was  determined,  in  that  one  passage,  to 
make  it  so  plain,  that  no  man  could  ever  be  at  any  loss 


132 

respecting  it.  And  would  not  the  opposers  of  Ortho- 
doxy consider  any  passage  in  this  light,  if  it  should  hap- 
pen to  teach,  in  the  same  clear,  diversified,  and  forcible 
manner,  some  doctrine  in  their  creed?  Dr.  Ware 
pleads  the  different  meanings  of  the  phrase  E<p  «,  trans- 
lated, for  that,  as  a  reason  why  we  should  not  attach 
much  consequence  to  the  passage.  I  will  only  say,  that  the 
signification  of  the  phrase,  which  is  given  in  the  common 
version,  and  which  is  the  only  one  that  leaves  to  the 
Apostle  the  credit  of  speaking  good  sense,  fully  supports 
our  scheme.  Whatever  variety  of  signification  the 
phrase  may  have  in  other  circumstances,  its  signification 
here  is  obvious,  and  the  argument  derived  from  the  pas- 
sage, conclusive. 

I  have  no  objection,  as  I  have  before  suggested,  to 
the  manner  in  which  Dr.  Ware  proposes  to  limit  the 
sense  of  the  assertion,  that  all  have  sinned.  He  says,  it 
is  the  assertion  of  a  fact,  which  none  will  deny  ;  and 
that,  all  circumstances  being  taken  into  view,  it  must 
mean,  "all  who  are  capable  of  sinning,  all  as  soon  as  they 
are  moral  agents."  I  presume  Dr.  Ware  would  be  reluct- 
ant to  undertake  the  task  of  determining,  at  what  precise 
period  human  beings  become  moral  agents.  If  he  should 
undertake  this,  we  might  reasonably  expect  him  to  de- 
termine it,  as  he  seems  already  to  have  done  in  his  Let- 
ters, where  he  gives  it  as  his  opinion,  that  men  are  mo- 
ral agents  by  their  birth.  Speaking,  p.  21,  of  what 
men  are  by  nature,  he  represents  them  as  having  pas- 
sions implanted  in  them,  natural  affections,  reason  and 
conscience;  which,  taken  together,  make  them  account- 
able beings,  capable  of  right  and  wrong.  This  is  per- 
fectly equivalent  to  saying,  they  are  moral  agents.  He 
asserts  nearly  the  same  thing,  p.  41.  If  these  passages 
are  put  together,  and  understood  according  to  the  fair 
import  of  the  words,  they  teach  quite  as    much,  as  any 


J33 

friend  of  Orthodoxy  believes,   namely,  that  all  men   are 
sinners  as  soon  as  they  are  born.      I  beg  the  reader  to  re- 
view and  compare  the  passages  to  which  I   have   refer- 
red, and  see  whether  I  have  not  given  the  just  result  of 
Dr.  Ware's  own  representations.   And  if  he  does  indeed 
entertain  these  views,   we  should  suppose  he    might   be 
relieved  from  the   difficulty  he  feels,   in   conceiving  that 
Adam's  posterity  should  be  subjected  to  death  and  oth- 
er sufferings,  as  penal  evils,  without  admitting  that  they 
are  charged  with  the  sin   of  another.     See  his  Letters^ 
p.  43.     He   says,  "  if  this  clause   (all    have    sinned)   be 
understood  in  a  sense  which  shall  prove  any  thing  to  the 
purpose,  it   will  prove  the  genuine   old  Calvinistic  doc- 
trine, the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin/'     But  in  the  course 
of  his  discussion,  he   makes   it   prove   something   to  the 
purpose,  without  any  regard  to  that  doctrine.     We  have 
seen  his  representation  to  be,  that  all  are  sinners  as  soon 
as  they  are   capable  of  sin,  or  as  soon  as  they  are  moral 
agents,  and  that  they  are  reasonable,  accountable  beings, 
or  moral  agents,   by    their  birth.     The  conclusion  from 
these  premises  must  be,  that   they  are  sinners,  or  sinful 
moral  agents,  by  their   birth.     And  if  they  are  sinners, 
or  have  a  sinful  disposition  or  character  by  their  birth, 
then  obviously,  in  view  of  that  sinfulness,  death  and  other 
evils  which  they  suffer,  may  be  penal  evils,  without  any 
thing  like  a  literal  imputation  of  Adam's   sin.     I    stated 
in  my  Letters,  as  the  sentiment   of  the  Apostle,  that  in 
consequence  of  Adam's  transgression,  his  posterity  were 
constituted  sinners,  and  subjected  to  death  and  other  suf- 
ferings, as  penal  evils.     Dr.  Ware  says,  if  this  means  any 
thing  to  the  purpose,  and  yet  short  of  the  common  no- 
tion of  imputation,  he  is    unable  to  perceive  what  it   is. 
But  it  is  strange,  that  his  own  representation   did   not 
help  him  to  perceive. — All  are  sinners.     This  is  a  fact; 
18 


134 

and  according  to  the  divine  constitution  here  set  forth 
by  the  Apostle,  this  fact  is  the  first  or  nearest  conse- 
quence of  Adam's  transgression.  The  fact  intended  is, 
that  all  are  sinners  really,  not  in  pretence  ;  in  their  own 
persons,  not  in  the  person  of  another ;  and  that  the 
evils  they  endure  relate  directly  to  their  own  sinfulness, 
as  the  meritorious  cause,  and  remotely  to  the  sin  of 
Adam,  as  the  occasion  ;  that  is,  the  occasion  of  the  ex- 
istence of  that  personal  sinfulness,  on  account  of  which 
penal  evils  are  suffered.  I  do  not  admit  that  they  are 
sinners  by  the  sin  of  Adam,  in  such  a  sense  that  they 
suffer  directly  on  his  account,  they  themselves  being  free 
from  moral  pollution;  or  in  any  sense  but  this,  that  they 
are  constituted  and  actually  exist,  sinners,  that  is,  sinful, 
ill-deserving  creatures,  not  by  the  transfer  of  another's 
guilt  to  them,  (a  thing  utterly  incongruous  and  incon- 
ceivable,) but  in  their  own  persons;  in  short,  that  they 
are  essentially  what  they  show  themselves  to  be  in  their 
subsequent  life.  Speaking  of  the  representation  of  Stap- 
fer,  that  God  gives  Adam  a  posterity  like  himself,  Dr. 
Ware  very  justly  says,  "  if  this  means  any  thing,  it  must 
mean  sinners  like  himself;"  that  is,  sinners  in  their  own 
persons,  sinful  in  their  character,  ill-deserving  in  them- 
selves, and  so  justly  liable  to  suffering.  Such  they  are, 
or  they  are  not  like  Adam. 

On  this  part  of  the  general  subject  of  Dr.  Ware's  Let- 
ters, I  have  only  a  few  more  remarks.  Page  49  and 
elsewhere,  he  makes  much  of  man's  having  a  natural  or 
communicated  power  to  resist  his  sinful  propensities,  and 
to  be  otherwise  than  what  he  is.  Now  in  regard  to 
man's  power,  properly  so  called,  our  notions  are  proba- 
bly as  high  as  Dr.  Ware's.  We  conceive  man's  power, 
understood  in  its  literal,  proper  sense,  to  be  always  com- 


135 

mensurate  with  his  obligation.  There  can  be  no  duty 
without  it,  and  none  beyond  it. 

I  hope  Dr.  Ware  will  reconsider  what  he  has 
written  respecting  a  propensity  to  sin;  namely;  "that 
the  propensity  itself  is  no  sin,  and  implies  no  guilt." 
p.  49.  Every  man  must  decide,  and  does  decide,  that 
a  propensity,  inclination,  or  disposition  to  sin,  is  the  very 
essence  of  sin,  and  the  only  thing  which  makes  any  out- 
ward action  or  any  volition  sinful.  Before  we  impute  real 
blame  to  a  man  for  any  action,  we  either  know,  or  take 
it  for  granted,  that  he  has  a  wrong  disposition  or  propen- 
sity. And  in  regard  to  ourselves;  if,  in  any  case  where 
our  actions  appear  exceptionable  in  the  view  of  man, 
we  are  conscious  of  no  bad  disposition  or  propensity  ; 
we  charge  ourselves  with  no  real  guilt.  But  how  fair  so- 
ever our  actions  may  appear  to  man,  if  we  are  conscious 
of  having  a  sinful  propensity  or  disposition,  we  condemn 
ourselves, — we  condemn  ourselves  for  the  disposition 
itself,  as  bein£  the  essence  of  sin. 

In  connexion  with  this  subject,  Dr.  Ware  makes  one 
representation  of  the  scheme  of  Calvinism,  on  which  I 
beg  leave  briefly  to  remark.  He  says,  p.  50;  "If  I 
rightly  understand  the  scheme  of  Calvinism,  divine  pun- 
ishments are  not,  according  to  that  scheme,  disciplinary, 
but  vindictive.  God  punishes  his  offending  creatures  not 
to  reform  them,  but  to  vindicate  his  authority.  The 
sufferings  of  the  wicked  have  no  tendency  to  reform,"  &c. 
But  this  cannot  be  admitted  as  a  just  account  of  Calvin- 
ism, unless  the  remarks  are  understood  to  relate  exclu- 
sively to  future  punishment.  So  far  as  my  information 
extends,  all  Calvinists,  whether  higher  or  lower,  consid- 
er the  sufferings  of  the  present  life,  not  only  as  tending 
to  vindicate  the  character  and  law  of  God,  but  as  disci- 
plinary, that  is,  as  having  a  real  tendency,  under  the  dis- 


136 

pensation  of  mercj,  to  reform  the  wicked  ;  a  tenden- 
cy, which  is  in  many  cases  effectual,  and  which  would 
be  so  in  all  cases,  were  it  not  counteracted  by  other 
causes.  In  respect  to  this  subject,  the  Scripture  leads 
us  to  make  a  clear  distinction  between  the  state  of 
probation,  and  of  retribution.  In  the  former,  the  evils 
which  God  inflicts  on  men  are  corrective  or  disciplina- 
ry, though  at  the  same  time  suited  to  show  God's  jus- 
tice, and  to  vindicate  his  authority.  In  the  latter  state, 
as  we  understand  the  word  of  God,  the  reformation  of 
the  wicked  does  not  come  within  the  design  of  punish- 
ment. The  end  to  be  secured  relates  wholly  to  the  di- 
vine character  and  kingdom.  But  we  cannot  accede  to 
Dr.  Ware's  notion,  that  disciplinary  punishment  may  be 
inflicted  by  a  righteous  and  benevolent  God,  without  real 
ill-desert  in  those  who  suffer.  Is  not  disciplinary  pun- 
ishment intended  for  correction  and  reformation  ?  But 
what  place  can  there  be  for  correction  or  reformation  in 
regard  to  those,  who  are  not  faulty,  or  blame-worthy  ? 
What  need  of  reformation  ?  And  what  occasion  for  cor- 
rection ?  Suppose  punishment  is  laid  upon  them.  How 
can  it  produce  any  good  effect  ?  Certainly  not  accord- 
ing to  any  physical  laws.  The  effect  to  be  produced  is 
in  the  mind,  and  must  be  produced,  if  produced  at  all, 
according  to  the  laws  of  our  intelligent  and  moral  nature. 
Punishment,  to  be  salutary,  must  relate  to  some  fault, 
some  moral  evil,  and  must  express  to  us  the  divine  dis- 
pleasure on  account  of  it.  Where  this  is  the  case,  there 
is  correction  ;  and  if  we  are  not  refractory,  there  will  be 
reformation. 

I  can  spend  but  a  few  moments  upon  the  views  of 
our  Author,  p.  52.  He  thinks  that  the  scheme  of  Uni- 
tarians on  the  subject  of  depravity  is  suited   to  produce 


137 

much  greater  humility  and  self-abhorrence,  than  that  of 
the  Orthodox.  Those,  who  are  familiarly  acquainted 
with  what  the  advocates  of  Unitarian  ism  and  of  Ortho- 
doxy have  written  on  the  subject  of  human  corruption, 
and  with  the  views  they  respectively  entertain  as  to  the 
proper  estimate  of  our  own  character,  must,  I  think,  be 
surprised  at  this  opinion  of  Dr  Ware.  The  truth  is, 
Unitarians  have  constantly  complained,  that  the  Ortho- 
dox make  too  low  an  estimate  of  human  virtue  ;  that 
they  indulge  too  debasing  views  of  human  nature,  and 
paint  the  wickedness  of  their  species  in  too  strong  colours. 
At  the  same  time,  Unitarians  of  an  independent,  liberal 
judgment,  like  Dr.  Priestley,  have  freely  acknowledged 
the  tendency  of  our  doctrine  of  depravity,  erroneous  as 
they  think  it,  to  promote  deep  humility.  And  I  have 
been  greatly  mistaken,  if  the  repugnancy  of  the  doctrine 
to  the  pride  of  the  heart  has  not  occasioned  the  chief 
objection  against  it.  Dr.  Ware  indeed  says  ;  "  we  cer- 
tainly have  no  cause  to  feel  ourselves  humbled  under  a 
sense  of  any  thing  we  are  by  nature."  But  he  says  it 
very  incautiously.  For  whatever  he  may  think  of  those 
born  in  Christian  lands  ;  he  hesitates  not  to  allow  that 
the  Ephesians  "  were  by  nature  children  of  wrath  ;"  that 
is,  sinful,  and  deserving  of  wrath.  Was  not  this  a  cause 
for  humility  in  them  ?  The  foundation  of  Dr.  Ware's 
misapprehension  must,  I  think,  be,  that  he  considers  native 
sinfulness  to  be,  in  its  essential  properties,different  trom  the 
sinfulness  exhibited  in  our  life  ;  whereas  these  two  must 
be  regarded  as  only  the  commencement,  and  the  continu- 
ance of  the  same  thing.  "Humility  and  self-condemna- 
tion," Dr.  Ware  says,  "should  spring  only  from  the  con- 
sciousness of  a  course  of  life  not  answering  to  the  pow- 
ers, and  faculties,  and  privileges  of  our  nature."  Now 
which  should  be    the   occasion  of  greater  humility  and 


138 

self-condemnation  to  a  man,  the  consciousness  that  such 
a  course  as  this  has  extended  through  one  or  two  years, 
or  that  it  has  extended  through  his  whole  life  ?  Sin  must 
be  considered  as  essentially  the  same  thing,  whether  it 
begin  sooner  or  later.  And  other  things  being  equal,  a 
man's  guilt  is  proportionate  to  the  duration  of  his  sinful- 
ness. Dr.  Ware  and  other  writers  distinguish  native 
wickedness  from  active,  voluntary  wickedness.  But  they 
do  it  without  reason.  For  that  which  is  native  may  be 
as  active  and  voluntary,  as  that  which  gets  into  the  mind 
afterwards.  We  certainly  do  not  make  such  a  distinction 
in  regard  to  other  things.  For  example  ;  those  appe- 
tites which  are  given  us  with  our  original  constitution 
and  are  therefore  called  natural,  are  as  strong  and  active 
as  others.  It  is  true,  these  appetites  have  no  direct  rela- 
tion to  the  moral  law,  and  in  regard  to  that  law,  are  neither 
right  nor  wrong.  But  w7e  do  not  deny  their  relation  to 
the  law  because  they  belong  to  us  from  the  first.  It 
is  simply  from  a  consideration  of  the  real  nature  of  any 
affection  or  action  of  man,  and  not  from  a  consideration 
of  the  time  or  the  occasion  of  its  beginning  to  exist,  that 
we  denominate  it  good  or  bad,  praise-worthy  or  blame- 
worthy. If  man  began  to  exercise  love  to  God  at  his  first 
existence,  surely  our  opponents  would  not,  on  that  ac- 
count, consider  it,  as  any  the  less  excellent  and  worthy  of 
approbation.  Let  any  one  read  what  Dr.  Ware  has 
written  respecting  that  gratitude,  that  love  of  truth,  that 
kindness,  and  those  other  dispositions  and  tendencies  to 
good,  which  he  represents  as  native  properties  of  man, 
and  see  whether  there  is  the  least  appearance  of  his 
considering  them  any  the  less  amiable  or  praise-worthy, 
on  that  account.  Why  then  should  bad  dispositions,  or 
tendencies  to  evil,  which  are  natural,  be,  for  the  same  rea- 
son, considered  as  any  the  less  odious  and  blame-worthy? 


139 

Dr.  Ware  has  no  difficulty  in  representing  men  who  are 
born  in  Christian  lands,  as  having  by  their  birth  just  what 
the  Ephesians  had  after  their  conversion  ;  that  is,  religion, 
holiness.  But  where  does  he  intimate  that  their  holi- 
ness was  less  estimable,  because  it  was  a  native  property  ? 
Our  author  seems  fond  of  saying  and  of  repeating, 
that  our  doctrine  ascribes  human  wickedness  to  the 
agency  of  God  ;  that  it  traces  sin  to  that  constitution 
which  was  given  us  by  our  Creator,  &c.  But  though  all 
this  is  admitted,  even  in  the  offensive  terms  he  uses  ;  the 
difficulty  is  not  a  whit  greater,  than  what  attends  his 
system.  He  says,  that  human  beings,  created  innocent 
and  pure,  afterwards  fall  into  sin  by  their  own  choice, 
and  in  the  exercise  of  their  own  free  ao;encv.  Now  if 
there  is  any  truth  in  Philosophy  or  Revelation,  it  can 
be  proved  that  their  falling  into  sin,  at  any  period  of 
their  life,  is  a  thing  as  really  to  be  ascribed  to  the  op- 
eration of  their  Maker,  or  to  the  constitution  he  has 
given  them,  as  native  sinfulness.  For  suppose,  accord- 
ing to  Dr.  Ware's  scheme,  that  a  man,  influenced  by 
strong  temptation,  at  any  time  fails  into  sin.  Who  gave 
him  a  constitution  of  mind,  fitted  to  be  wrought  upon  by 
temptation  ?  And  who  ordered  things  so,  that  he  should 
be  exposed  to  temptation,  and  to  those  particular  temp- 
tations which  prevail  to  draw  him  into  sin  ?  Did  not 
God  know  the  result  beforehand?  Was  it  not  a  result 
which  naturally  flowed  from  causes,  which  God  directed 
and  controlled,  operating  upon  a  moral  nature  which  he 
created,  and  according  to  laws  which  he  established? 
The  question  I  would  ask  him  to  solve,  is,  how,  in  such 
a  case,  there  can  be  any  blame?  I  am  far  from  saying, 
that  no  difficulty  attends  the  scheme  of  native  depravi- 
ty, in  this  respect.  But  the  difficulty  is,  in  my  view,  no 
greater,  than  what  attends  any  other  scheme. 


140 

"But  I  must  check  my  inclination  to  pursue  this  met- 
aphysical mode  of  reasoning  ;  though  it  must  be  allowed 
that  I  have  an  apology,  in  the  metaphysical  nature  of 
the  arguments  to  he  confuted.  I  will  just  add,  that 
the  habit  of  attributing  moral  evil  to  God  in  such  a 
way  as  to  destroy  or  diminish  its  criminality,  is,  in  my 
view,  one  of  the  worst  habits,  of  which  the  human 
mind  is  capable.  It  produces  alarming  stupidity  of  con- 
science and  hardness  of  heart,  and  leads  to  the  most  de- 
structive fatalism. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

As  to  the  practical  importance  of  the  subject  of  na- 
tive depravity,  which  has  now  been  discussed  at  such 
length,  any  man  may  be  satisfied,  who  will  maturely  con- 
sider what  connexion  it  must  have  with  our  views,  gen- 
erally, of  Christian  truth  and  piety.  It  is  not  enough  to 
say,  that  the  denial  of  the  original,  native  corruption  of 
man  does  in  fact  go  in  company  with  such  and  such  no- 
tions of  Christianity.  It  may  be  shown,  and  it  must  be 
remembered,  that  the  connexion,  which  exists  in  fact,  is 
not  accidental,  but  arises  directly  from  the  nature  of  the 
subject.  If  we  believe  that  our  moral  disease  results 
from  our  moral  constitution, — that  it  is  inwrought  in  our 
very  nature  ;  we  shall  surely  have  different  views  of  the 
remedy  that  is  necessary,  from  what  we  should  have,  if 
we  considered  our  disease  as  merely  accidental,  or  as 
less  deep  and  radical.  Just  as  it  is  in  regard  to  a  bodily 
disease.  If  it  is  a  slight,  superficial  disorder,  which  first 
appeared  but  yesterday,  or  which  has  appeared   but  a 


141 

few  times,  the  original  constitution  being  sound  and  vig- 
orous ;    we   have  little  concern.     Some  gentle  remedy 
will  be  sufficient  to  remove  it;  or  perhaps  it  will  shortly 
disappear  of  itself.     But  if  the  disease  is  rooted   in  our 
constitution  ;    if  it  began  to  show  itself  very  early,   and 
evidently  results  from  onr  original  structure  ;  especially, 
if  there  is  evidence  of  its  being  hereditary;    it  becomes 
an  alarming  case.     Some  powerful  remedy  is  necessary  ; 
something  that  will  effect  a  great  and  salutary  change  in 
our  very  constitution.     If  this  cannot  be  had,  we  despair 
of  a  thorough  cure.     In  like  manner,  those  who  serious- 
ly believe  themselves  and  others  to  be  the  subjects  of  a 
native  and  entire  depravity,  must  be   convinced,   that   a 
mighty  operation  of  divine  power  is  necessary  to  make 
them  holy.     They  must  view  it  as   indispensable,    that 
they  should   be  born  again.     Passing  by  human   efforts, 
and  all  slight,  common  remedies,  as   totally  inadequate, 
they  must  found  every  hope    of  moral   purification   on 
that  energy  of  God,  which  gives  men  a  new  heart   and 
a  new  spirit, — which  creates  them  in  Christ  Jesus  unto 
<^ood  works.     Though  they  have  been  born  in  a  Chris- 
tian land  ;  though  they  have  enjoyed  the    best   instruc- 
tion,  and    witnessed   examples    of  the  greatest  purity  ; 
though  distinguished  by  the  most  correct  habits,  by  the 
most  useful  actions,  and  by  the  highest  improvement  of 
their  rational  powers  and  natural  sensibilities  ;  and  though 
applauded  for  their  virtues  by  those  who  look  only  on  the 
outward  appearance  ;    yet,   while   unrenewed,  they  find 
in  themselves  that  corruption  of  heart,  which  is  the  foun- 
tain of  ail  iniquity  ; — they  find    the    utter   want  of  that 
holiness,  without  which  no  man  can  see  the  Lord.     The 
disease  of  their  nature,  that  is,  the   earthly,   selfish,   un- 
holy disposition,  which  has  from  the  first  borne  sway  in 
their  hearts,  and  influenced  all  their  actions,  spoils  the 

19 


142 

beauty  of  their  fair  exterior,  lays  them  low  in  the  dust, 
and  brings  them  to  rely  solely  on  the  purifying  grace  of 
God.  They  have  a  strong,  humbling  conviction  that, 
amiable  and  excellent  as  their  character  may  appear  to 
others,  they  must  be  saved,  if  saved  at  all,  by  the  wash- 
ing of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Through  their  whole  course,  their  religious  feelings 
and  duties  are  materially  affected  by  their  belief  of 
the  radical,  native  depravity  of  their  hearts.  While 
sensible  of  this  deep-rooted  evil  of  their  nature,  they 
suffer  no  proud  self-complacency  to  possess  their 
minds.  New  reasons  constantly  occur  for  self-dis- 
trust and  self-abhorrence.  In  a  greater  or  less  degree, 
the  fountain  of  evil  still  remains  within  them.  They 
never  account  themselves  to  have  attained  complete  vic- 
tory over  sin.  They  have  perpetually  an  inward  war- 
fare, and  in  every  part  of  their  warfare,  they  confide  in 
that  divine  grace,  which  gives  purity  and  strength  to  the 
soul.  In  their  latest  moments,  they  deplore  that  obsti- 
nate, hateful  malady  of  their  nature,  which  has  so  long 
kept  up  its  resistance  to  the  best  means  of  cure  ;  and, 
with  their  dying  breath,  they  cry  for  the  Spirit  of  God 
to  complete  their  sanctification,  and  fit  them  for  the 
presence  of  him  whom  their  soul  loveth. 

Consider  now,  how  different  are  the  views  of  those 
who  deny  the  native  corruption  of  man,  and  believe  him 
to  be  originally  pure;  and  how  different  the  whole  aspect 
of  their  religion.  On  this  subject,  I  would  gladly  ex- 
cuse myself  from  saying  what  the  case  seems  to  require  ; 
because  my  controversy  is  with  a  man,  whose  talents 
and  office  I  would  treat  with  invariable  respect,  whose 
coolness  of  judgment  and  sobriety  of  character  I  wish  to 
copy,  and  whose  candour,  civility,  and  kindness  towards 
me  I  am  most  cordially  disposed  to  reciprocate.     I  trust 


143 

it  will  be  well  understood,  that,  my  animadversions  re- 
late not  to  him,  personally,  but  to  the  system  which   he 
has  undertaken  to  unfold  and  vindicate.     What  then  is 
the  scheme  of  practical  religion,  with  which   the   denial 
of  innate   depravity  is  associated  ?     If  I   believe,  as   a 
general  truth,  "  that  young  children  are   what    men   are 
to  become  by  regeneration;"  that  is,  if  I    believe  them 
to  be  friends  of  God,  subjects  of  real  holiness  ;    if  I   be- 
lieve that  all,  who  are  now  born  into  the  world  in  Chris- 
tian lands,  are  already  "saved  by  the  grace  of  God,  and 
fellow  citizens  with  the  saints  ;"    I  must  treat   them  ac- 
cordingly.    I  must  treat  them  as  persons,  who  have   no 
need  of  conversion,  or  of  the  grace  of  God  to  effect   it ; 
inasmuch  as  they  are  born  Christians,  and  already  pos- 
sess the  character  of  converts.     And   if  at   any  time   I 
seem  to  see  some  mark  of  depravity  common  to  children, 
I  must  apologize  for  it,  and  soothe  their  feelings  by  tell- 
ing them,  it  can  "  fairly  be  traced   to  causes  which   im- 
ply no  degree  of  depravity,  and  no  fault  of  character  or 
disposition  ;"  so  that  they  have  no  occasion   for  uneasi- 
ness, or  for  reformation.     And   if  I   address   sinners  at 
large,  either  in  public  or  in  private  ;  instead  of  depicting 
their  guilt,  as  the  inspired  writers  do,  and   labouring  to 
make  them  feel,  that  they  are   dead   in  trespasses   and 
sins,  and  justly  under  the  wrath  of  God  ;  I  must  not  hes- 
itate to  say  to  them,  as  our  Author  does,  p.  24,  "  that  as 
much  as  there  is   of  wickedness   and  vice,  there   is   far 
more  of  virtue  and  goodness  ; — that  wickedness,  far  from 
being  the  prevailing  part  of  the  human  character,  makes 
but  an  inconsiderable  part  of  it."     And   if  I   ever  have 
occasion  to  speak  to  men  of  the  worst  character.,  to  liars, 
thieves,  adulterers,  blasphemers,   men   of  revenge   and 
blood,  infidels,  atheists, — I  must  soothe  their  feelings  too, 
not  by  persuading  them   to  apply  to  that   blood   which 


144 

cieanseth  from  all  sin — not  by  pointing  them  to  mercy 
higher  than  the  heavens  ; — but  by  so  far  forgetting  the 
word  of  God,  as  to  tell  them,  41  that  even  in  the  worst  of 
men,  good  feelings  and  principles  are  predominant,"  and 
that,  as  "  the  greatest  liar"  may  comfort  himself  with 
the  idea,  that  "  by  the  constitution  of  his  nature  he 
speaks  many  truths  to  every  lie  he  utters  ;"  so  other 
monsters  of  wickedness  should  not  deprive  themselves 
of  the  satisfaction  of  believing,  "  that  in  the  course  of 
their  lives,  they  perform  many  more  good  than  bad 
actions."*  And  if  I  am  to  carry  such  a  flattering  message 
to  "  the  worst  of  men  :"  with  what  sincere  conoratula- 
tions  must  I  address  myself  to  the  generality  ?  As  to 
men  who  are  destitute  of  holiness,  enemies  to  God,  dead 
in  sin,  men  whose  imaginations  and  desires  are  only  evil, 
and  who  are  ready  to  perish, — none  can  be  found  among 
us.  Through  the  healing  influence  of  being  born  in 
Christian  lands,  another  race  of  men  has  sprung  up,  saints 
by  nature,  needing  no  renovation ;  of  the  household  of 
faith  and  of  the  kingdom  of  God  by  their  first  birth ;  to 
whom  it  would  be  altogether  superfluous  to  be  born 
again  of  the  Spirit  of  God.t 

If  men  transgress  the  rules  of  morality,  I  must  indeed, 
according  to  Dr.  Ware's  views,  tell  them,  they  are  sin- 
ners, and  urge  them  to  repent.  But  here  is  the  differ- 
ence. If  I  am  duly  impressed  with  the  common  doc- 
trine of  depravity,  I  shall  endeavour  to  convince  them* 
whether  old  or  young,  not  only  of  the  impropriety  and 
guilt  of  the  particular  acts  of  sin  they  have  committed, 
but  of  the  corrupt  principle,  the  depravity  of  heart,  from 
which  they  have  proceeded,  and  from  which,  if  it  re- 
main, sinful  acts  will  continue  to  proceed  ;  and  to  show 
them,  that  it  is  not  more  evidently  their  concern  to  re- 

*  See  Letters  to  Trin.  and  CaJv.  p.  25.  +  Do.  p.  47. 


145 

pent  of  the  particular  sins  committed,  than  it  is  to  be 
renewed  in  the  Spirit  of  their  minds.  I  shall  take  occa- 
sion from  what  they  have  actually  done,  to  turn  their 
thoughts  within,  to  make  them  acquainted  with  the 
plague  of  their  own  hearts,  and  lead  them  to  feel  that 
the  word  of  God  does  indeed  address  them,  when  it  says, 
"ye  must  be  born  again."  And  as  to  any  repentance  or 
reformation  short  of  this,  I  shall  most  seriously  assure 
them,  it  will  avail  nothing. 

These  are  cutting,  humbling  truths,  marring  the  beau- 
ty of  all  external  virtue,  where  the  heart  retains  its  na- 
tive alienation  from  God.  They  make  the  great  force 
of  that  conviction,  which  the  Holy  Spirit  produces,  to 
relate  to  that  very  inbred,  entire  depravity  of  the  heart, 
which  is  the  subject  of  this  controversy.  Thus  the 
doctrine,  as  I  have  exhibited  it,  is  a  practical  truth,  con- 
firmed by  Christian  experience.  They  who,  being  thor- 
oughly illuminated  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  judge  themselves 
by  the  divine  law,  and  receive  salvation  by  grace,  are  as 
really  convinced  of  this  doctrine  by  their  own  experi- 
ence, as  by  the  plainest  declarations  of  Scripture.  And 
they  who  have  this  deep,  heart-felt  conviction,  can  no 
more  be  induced  to  deny  the  doctrine,  than  to  deny  any 
truth  whatever  which  they  know  by  their  own  con- 
sciousness. 

But  if  I  should  deny  the  doctrine  of  innate  deprav- 
ity, and  entertain  those  opinions  of  human  nature  which 
are  set  forth  in  the  Letters  to  Trinitarians  and  Calvin- 
ists ;  my  treatment  of  those,  who  transgress  the  rules 
of  morality,  would  be  materially  different.  I  should  in- 
deed exhort  them  to  repent  and  reform.  But  I  should 
never  occasion  any  uneasiness  to  their  conscience,  by  di- 
recting their  attention  to  the  badness  of  the  tree  which 
bears  bad  fruit,  or  to  the  impurity  of  the  fountain  from 


116 

which  impure  streams  flow.  Only  let  them  be  careful 
to  guard  against  those  particular  sins  to  which  they  have 
been  inclined,  and  maintain  a  regular,  decent  behaviour; 
and  I  should  bid  them  be  quiet,  and  give  no  place  to 
any  gloomy  apprehension  respecting  the  necessity  of  an 
inward  change.  Thus  the  thing  would  pass  off,  without 
any  great  solicitude  on  my  part,  or  on  theirs. 

I  mean  to  treat  this  subject  exactly  according  to 
truth.  If  I  exaggerate  or  discolour  any  thing,  and  by 
such  means  do  the  least  degree  of  injustice  to  those  who 
differ  from  me;  it  is  totally  contrary  to  my  intention ; 
and  the  temper  of  mind  which  would  lead  to  this,  I  most 
heartily  reprobate.  But  if  I  mistake  not,  the  general 
conduct  of  those  ministers,  who  hold  the  opinions  of  the 
book,  to  which  I  have  undertaken  a  reply,  corresponds 
substantially  with  the  representation  I  have  made. 
Such  I  am  well  persuaded  would  be  my  conduct,  should 
I  adopt  those  opinions.  If  sinners,  deeply  convinced  of 
their  depravity,  and  of  the  total  inefficacy  of  any  refor- 
mation, or  any  doings  of  theirs,  while  their  heart  remains 
unrenewed — convinced  too,  that  they  are  enemies  to 
God,  without  excuse,  ready  to  perish, — and  suffering  the 
agony  of  soul,  which  such  conviction  naturally  produces; 
if  sinners  in  this  condition  should  come  to  me,  and  in  the 
language  of  anxiety  and  distress  should  say,  as  multi- 
tudes, through  the  mercy  of  God,  are  constantly  saying 
to  their  ministers,  what  shall  ive  do  to  be  saved  ? — I  should 
indeed  pity  fellow  creatures  in  such  distress  ;  but  at  the 
same  time,  if  I  entertained  the  sentiments  of  Unitarians,  I 
should  endeavour  to  satisfy  them,  that  their  distress  was 
without  reason,  and  was  occasioned  by  false  views  of  re- 
ligion, or  by  some  fright  of  imagination,  or  some  de- 
rangement of  the  nervous  system.  I  should  labour  to 
relieve  their  sense  of  guilt,  their  anxiety  and  fear,  by  in- 


147 

culcating  more  comforting  views  of  the  nature  which 
God  has  given  them,  of  the  service  he  requires  of  them, 
and  of  the  treatment  they  have  a  right  to  expect  at  his 
hand.  In  a  word,  I  should  look  upon  such  persons  to  be 
in  a  state  more  deeply  to  be  deplored,  than  if  they  were 
living  in  fashionable  vice,  totally  regardless  of  God  and 
eternity. — If  there  are  any  ministers,  who  embrace  the 
prevailing  system  of  Unitarianism,  but  still  do  not  feel 
and  converse  thus  in  reference  to  such  cases  ;  I  rejoice 
that  they  have  something  within  them  to  counteract  an 
influence,  which  I  am  persuaded  would  produce  upon 
me  all  the  effect  above  described. 

The  denial  of  man's  innate  corruption  must  have  a 
direct  influence  on  our  views  of  the  nature  and  necessi- 
ty of  the  divine  influence.  It  may  indeed  seem  desira- 
ble to  Unitarians,  that  God  should  afford  to  men  all  the 
assistance  they  need  in  regulating  their  passions,  and  in 
pursuing  a  course  of  virtuous  conduct.  But  their  scheme 
implies  that,  comparatively,  but  little  divine  aid  is  ne- 
cessary. It  ascribes  to  the  Holy  Spirit  no  such  achiev- 
ments,  as  we  ascribe  to  him,  when  the  heart  is  renewed, 
and  the  sinner  savingly  converted.  When  rebels  against 
God — when  those  who  have  felt  an  entire  hostility  to 
the  spiritual  religion  of  the  Gospel,  become  penitent  and 
humble,  friends  to  God,  and  obedient  to  his  law ;  the  work 
performed  by  the  Spirit  of  God  has,  in  our  view,  a  great- 
ness and  glory,  which  entitle  it  to  the  admiration  of 
heaven  and  earth.  But  in  what  language  do  Unitari- 
ans describe  it  ? 

In  regard  to  the  whole  of  religion,  our  belief  of  hu~ 
man  depravity  has  an  influence  on  the  mind,  of  the  high- 
est moment.  It  is  one  of  the  elements  of  a  holy  life. 
It  produces  in  Christians  a  strong  conviction,  that,  in  re- 
spect to  their  good  affections,  their  duties,    and    their 


148 

enjoyments,  they  are  in  a  state  of  total  dependance 
on  the  Spirit  of  God.  They  apprehend  their  moral 
disease  to  be  so  deep-wrought  in  their  nature,  that 
it  will  yield,  in  no  degree,  to  any  power,  but  that 
which  is  divine.  If  they  have  any  degree  of  holiness, 
they  ascribe  it,  not  to  any  goodness  of  disposition  nat- 
urally belonging  to  them,  but  to  the  grace  of  God. 
To  God  alone  they  give  the  honour  of  all  their  suc- 
cess in  resisting  temptation,  in  subduing  the  evils  of  their 
hearts,  in  cultivating  pious  affections  and  habits,  and  in 
doing  good  to  their  fellow  creatures.  They  are  fully 
convinced  that,  without  his  effectual  operation,  they  can 
have  nothing  truly  excellent  in  their  character  or  life  ; 
nothing  consoling  in  affliction,  or  peaceful  in  death.  In 
the  best  moral  state  which  they  ever  attain  on  earth, 
they  perceive  so  much  want  of  conformity  to  God's  per- 
fect law, — so  much  unlikeness  to  their  Saviour,  that  the 
language  of  the  Apostle  becomes  the  sober  expression 
of  their  feelings  ;  "  O  wretched  men  that  we  are  !  Who 
shall  deliver  us  from  the  body  of  this  death  ?"  Thus 
they  are  led,  as  Jeremy  Taylor  directs,  "  so  to  live  as  if 
they  were  always  under  a  physician's  hand."  In  short 
it  is  manifest,  that  those  Christians,  who  admit,  in  all  its 
extent,  and  with  suitable  impressions  on  their  own  minds, 
the  Orthodox  doctrine  of  depravity,  must  find  in  it  a  va- 
riety of  motives,  powerfully  constraining  them  to  con- 
stant and  fervent  prayer,  to  self-denial,  to  a  godly  jeal- 
ousy over  their  own  hearts,  to  a  watchful  avoidance 
of  every  thing  which  can  minister  to  their  moral  cor- 
ruption, and  to  efforts  of  the  greatest  intensity,  to 
"  put  off  the  old  man  with  his  deeds,  and  to  put  on 
the  new  man,  which  after  God  is  created  in  righteous- 
ness and  true  holiness."  1  must  decline  here,  as  I  did 
in  my  Letters,  any  formal  comparison  between  the  gen- 


149 

eral  character  exhibited  by  the  Orthodox,  and  that  ex- 
hibited by  Unitarians.  Indeed  I  am  perfectly  ready  to 
confess,  that  among  those  who  profess  to  believe  the 
common  doctrine  of  depravity,  and  even  among  those 
who  preach  it,  instances  of  wickedness  sometimes  occur 
of  the  most  hateful  aspect,  and  stamping  the  perpetra- 
tors with  indelible  infamy.  These  instances  I  regard? 
as  paint ul  proofs  of  that  very  corruption,  that  deep,  in- 
veterate corruption  of  human  nature,  which  has  been 
under  discussion.  At  the  same  time  I  contend,  that  the 
cordial  belief  of  the  doctrine  tends  to  produce,  and  actu- 
allv  has  produced  all  the  salutary  influence  above  de- 
scribed ;  and  that  those  views  of  the  human  character, 
which  my  opponents  attempt  to  vindicate,  lead  on  to  all 
the  hurtful  consequences  which  I  have  suggested. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Mr.  Channing  and  others  have  accused  the  Orthodox 
generally  of  maintaining  certain  opinions  on  the  subject  of 
Election.  We  have  repelled  the  accusation,  by  saying,  that 
we  do  not  maintain  those  opinions.  Dr.  Ware's  apology  for 
Mr.  Channing  is  this  ; — if  the  Orthodox  "  do  not  maintain 
the  opinions,  against  which  the  sermon  of  Mr.Channing  is 
directed,  there  seems  to  have  been  no  good  reason  why 
they  should  feel  themselves  at  all  concerned  in  the 
charge.  Calvinists  only  who  do  maintain  them,  can  fairly 
consider  their  opinions  as  attacked,  and  themselves  called 
upon  to  defend  them."  This  apology  would  have  been 
satisfactory,  if  Mr.  Channing  had  directed  his  sermon 
against  opinions  merely,  and  not  against  men.  But  as 
20 


150 

the  charges  contained  in  the  sermon  are  made  against  the 
Orthodox,  we  have  this  to  do  with  them  at  least,  that 
is,  to  declare  them  untrue.  And  as  Mr.  Channing  has 
been  distinctly  informed  that  we  disclaim  the  senti- 
ments which  he  has  charged  and  has  been  understood  to 
charge  upon  us  ;  it  would  be  no  unnatural  expectation, 
that  he  would  have  something  to  do,  besides  repeating 
such  groundless  charges.  Indeed  it  has  become  a  question 
of  difficult  solution  with  many,  how  it  can  be  reconciled 
with  fairness  or  integrity  for  him  to  continue,  without 
abatement  or  correction,  to  publish  charges,  by  which 
the  great  body  of  Christians  in  the  world  are  really  as 
much  injured,  as  he  himself  would  be,  if  the  same  charges 
were  published  against  him. 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  doctrine  of  Election, 
which  Orthodox  Christians  believe,  and  Orthodox  Min- 
isters preach,  is  not  the  doctrine,  which  our  opposers 
ascribe  to  us.  The  picture  which  Unitarians  and  Armi- 
nians  draw  of  the  doctrine  is,  in  its  essential  features,  very 
unlike  the  doctrine  which  we  maintain.  John  Wesley 
says,  and  one  of  his  late  biographers  thinks  he  has  stated 
the  case  with  equal  force  and  truth  ;  "The  sum  of  all  is 
this;  one  in  twenty  (suppose)  of  mankind,  are  elected; 
nineteen  in  twenty  are  reprobated.  The  elect  shall  be 
saved,  do  what  they  will ;  the  reprobate  shall  be  damned, 
do  what  they  can."  Now  the  fact  is,  that  human  ingenui- 
ty could  not  make  a  representation  of  the  doctrine,  more 
uncandid,  distorted,  or  false.  And  if,  after  all  the  ex- 
planations which  have  been  given  of  our  doctrine,  any 
man  still  chooses  to  represent  it  in  this  manner,  I  will 
leave  it  to  him  to  assign  his  reasons  fordoing  so. 

In  my  Letters,  I  represented  the  doctrine  of  Election, 
in  a  general  view,  as  implying  the  eternal  purpose  of  God 


151 

respecting  his  own  acts  in  the  work  of  redemption  ;  that  is, 
the  eternal  purpose  of  God  to  do  what  he  actually  does 
in  saving  sinners.  Dr.  Ware  thinks  no  Unitarian  would 
dissent  from  this  form  of  the  doctrine.  It  would  seem 
then,  from  this  concession  of  his,  that  the  eternal  purpose 
of  God,  as  we  understand  it,  is  thought  by  Unitarians  to 
differ,  in  some  important  respects,  from  what  really  takes 
place,  and  that  it  is  on  this  account  simply,  that  they  object 
to  our  doctrine.  If  this  should  prove  to  be  the  case,  the 
limits  of  the  controversy  would  be  very  much  narrowed  ; 
as  all  the  objections  against  the  doctrine  of  an  eternal 
purpose,  from  its  alleged  inconsistency  with  man's  free- 
dom and  accountableness,  with  the  invitations  of  the  gos- 
pel, &c.  would  be  superseded,  and  the  simple  inquiry 
would  be,  whether  our  doctrine  gives  a  representation  of 
the  Divine  purpose,  correspondent  to  the  facts  which 
occur  in  divine  providence. 

The  existence  of  an  eternal  purpose  in  a  mind  possessed 
of  eternal  intelligence,  is  self-evident.  And  nothing  is  more 
certain  from  Scripture,  than  that  God  eternally  enter- 
tained a  design  respecting  human  salvation.  As  to  this 
there  can  be  no  dispute.  And  it  is  equally  clear,  that 
the  purpose  of  God  must  correspond  with  what  actually 
takes  place  ;  so  that,  by  observing  what  comes  to  pass  in 
divine  providence,  we  learn  not  merely  that  there  was  a 
purpose  in  the  divine  mind,  but  what  that  purpose  was. 
The  events  which  take  place  show  us  at  once,  what  God 
actually  does,  and  what  were  his  purposes.  This,  then, 
I  lay  down,  and  repeat,  as  a  universal  truth,  and  a  truth  of 
special  importance  in  this  controversy,  that  God's  purpos- 
es respecting  the  salvation  of  men,  and  all  other  subjects, 
correspond  perfectly  with  his  administration,  or  rather, 
that    his    administration   corresponds  with  his  purposes. 


152 

There  can  be  no  unforeseen  occurrence,  no  event  not 
predetermined.  I  would  say  then,  in  pursuance  of  the 
views  expressed  in  my  Letters,  and  to  mrke  the  subject 
still  more  plain,  that  so  far  as  the  acts  of  the  divine 
administration  are  right,  the  divine  purposes  are  right. 
In  the  discussion  of  this  subject  therefore,  I  find  it  most 
convenient  and  satisfactory,  to  fix  my  attention  on  the 
divine  administration,  which  is  a  visible,  definite  thing, 
actually  exhibited  before  me,  and  from  that  to  regulate 
my  opinions  respecting  the  divine  purposes.  If  I  find  what 
God  does  in  the  government  of  the  world,  for  what  ends 
he  does  it,  and  in  what  order  ;  I  learn  what  was  the  plan 
of  the  divine  mind  from  eternity.  If  the  acts  of  the  divine 
administration  are  holy,  just,  and  good  ;  equally  hoiy,  just, 
and  good  is  the  divine  purpose  respecting  those  acts.  So 
that  whatever  there  may  be  in  our  doctrine  which  is 
exceptionable,  it  cannot  be  our  believing  that  God  has  a 
purpose,  or  that  his  purpose  is  eternal  and  immutable. 
For  if  the  thing  purposed,  that  is,  the  divine  administra- 
tion is  wise  and  benevolent ;  the  purpose  also  is  wise  and 
benevolent.  And  it  is  surely  far  enough  from  being  a 
dishonour  to  God,  that  he  should  eternally  and  unchange- 
ably entertain  a  wise  and  benevolent  design.  Nor  can 
our  doctrine  be  excepted  to,  because  we  maintain  that 
the  purpose  of  God  relates  to  all  events  which  take  place. 
For  if  all  events  do  in  fact  take  place  in  such  a  manner 
as  is  consistent  with  the  perfections  of  God  ;  then  clearly, 
bis  purposing  that  they  should  take  place  in  just  such  a 
manner  is  equally  consistent  with  his  perfections.  It  is 
then  altogether  unreasonable  to  object  to  the  declaration 
in  the  Catechism,  that  God  has  "  foreordained  whatsoever 
comes  to  pass  ;"  that  is,  that  his  purpose  extends  to  all 
events  in  his  administration.     For  if  every   part  of  his 


153 

administration  is  right  ;  his  having  purposed  every  part  is 
right.  There  is  then  no  danger  of  carrying  the  doctrine 
of  the  divine  purposes,  properly  understood,  to  too  great 
an  extent.  For  it  is  as  proper  for  God  to  determine  all 
his  own  acts,  and  all  that  shall  result  from  them,  as  to 
determine  a  part,  if  all  are  as  wise  and  good  as  a  part.  I 
say  then,  that  no  man  in  his  senses  can  think  we  carry 
the  doctrine  too  far,  when  we  assert  that  God  predeter- 
mines every  thing  which  is  comprised  in  his  whole  admin- 
istration. There  is  indeed  something  faulty  in  our  doctrine 
of  the  divine  purposes,  if  we  say  that  God  determines 
any  particular  thing,  which  in  fact  he  never  does  deter- 
mine, and  which  never  takes  place  ;  or  if  we  say  he 
determines  it  in  a  different  manner  from  that  in  which  it 
actually  takes  place  ; — in  other  words,  if  we  give  a 
representation  of  the  divine  purposes,  which,  in  one 
respect  or  another,  does  not  agree  with  the  divine 
administration.  For  example  ;  if  we  should  maintain 
that  God  determined  to  save  Judas,  or  to  cast  off  Paul  ; 
we  should  be  chargeable  with  an  error,  in  maintaining 
that  God  determined  what  in  fact  he  did  not  determine, 
and  what  never  took  place.  Or  if  we  should  say,  God 
determined  to  cast  off  and  punish  Judas  for  any  reason, 
but  for  his  wickedness  ;  we  should  be  chargeable  with 
misrepresenting  the  proximate  reason  of  that  particular 
purpose.  And  our  mistake  would  be  of  the  same  nature, 
if  we  should  maintain  that  God  determined  to  bestow  the 
rewards  of  heaven  upon  Paul,  without  any  regard  to  his 
holy  character  and  actions.  And  as  to  his  character,  we 
should  mistake,  if  we  should  maintain,  that  God  deter- 
mined it  should  be  formed  in  any  way,  except  that  in 
which  it  was  really  formed.  My  inquiry  is,  how  was  the 
character  of  Paul  and  of  Judas  actually  formed?   Under 


154 

the  influence  of  what  causes,  or  series  of  events  ;  and 
in  what  circumstances?  The  actual  formation  of  charac- 
ter in  such  circumstances,  and  under  such  an  influence, 
exactly  answers  to  the  divine  purpose  ;  and  the  divine 
purpose,  to  be  stated  correctly,  must  be  stated  as  agree- 
ing, in  all  respects,  with  what  thus  actually  occurs  in 
the  course  of  divine  providence.  By  fixing  our  thoughts 
in  this  manner  on  the  things  which  really  come  to  pass, 
and  on  the  order  and  manner  in  which  they  come  to  pass, 
we  may  arrive  at  a  view  of  the  divine  purposes,  which 
is  liable  to  no  uncertainty,  and  no  difficulty. 

These  remarks  are  as  applicable  to  the  purpose  of 
God,  which  is  called  Election,  as  to  any  other.  I  have 
represented  Election,  in  a  general  view,  as  the  purpose 
of  God  to  do  just  what  he  actually  does  in  saving  sinners, 
and  to  do  it  in  the  manner  in  which  he  actually  does  it. 
To  this  Dr.  Ware  thinks  there  is  no  objection.  He  al- 
lows then,  that  there  is  an  eternal,  immutable  purpose 
of  God  respecting  human  salvation.  And  he  must  al- 
low that  God  eternally  purposed  all  which  he  actually 
does  in  the  work  of  salvation.  We  cannot  make  God's 
purpose  either  too  extensive  or  too  particular,  if  we 
make  it  agree  entirely  with  his  work.  Now  God  does 
in  fact  save  a  certain  number  of  human  beings.  At  the 
judgment  day,  Christ  will  say  to  the  multitude  on  his 
right  hand,  consisting  of  a  certain,  definite  number  of  indi- 
vidual believers,  "  come,  ye  blessed  of  my  Father,  inher- 
it the  kingdom  prepared  for  you  from  the  foundation  of 
the  world."  God  must  have  eternally  designed  to  do 
just  what  he  does  in  the  present  life,  and  what  he  will 
do  at  the  judgment  day  ;  that  is,  he  must  have  designed 
to  save  that  same  definite  number  of  individuals.  And 
if  we   thus  represent    the   divine   purpose  as  agreeing 


155 

with  the  divine  acts,  no  one  can  have  the  least  reason 
to  object  to  our  doctrine,  because  we  assert  that  God 
eternally  designed  to  save  just  such  a  number  of  human 
beings,  and  just  such  individuals.  For  is  it  not  granted 
that  God's  purpose  and  his  acts  perfectly  agree  ;  or 
that  he  eternally  purposed  to  do  just  what  he  actually 
does  in  time  ?  Now  God  actually  saves  a  definite  num- 
ber of  individuals.  He  saves  that  definite  number,  and 
no  more,  or  less.  He  must  then  have  determined  to  do 
it.  If  any  man  denies  this,  he  must  say,  either  that  God 
does  not  in  fact  save  a  certain  definite  number  of  indi- 
viduals, or  that  he  does  this  without  previously  intend- 
ing to  do  it. 

By  these  remarks  I  wish  to  make  it  clear  to  every 
reader,  that  there  can  properly  be  no  dispute  respect- 
ing the  doctrine  of  the  divine  purposes,  taken  by  itself. 
The  controversy  really  respects  the  divine  administra- 
tion. The  proper  inquiry  is,  what  God  actually  does. 
If  we  agree  in  this,  we  shall  of  course  agree  as  to  his 
purposes.  By  conducting  the  controversy  in  this  way, 
we  shall  simplify  the  subject  of  inquiry,  and  free  it  at 
once  from  more  than  half  its  perplexity. 

My  object  in  this  chapter  is  not  to  attempt  a  partic- 
ular and  full  discussion  of  the  subject,  but  merely  to  ex- 
hibit, in  its  outlines,  the  manner  in  which  I  think  the 
doctrine  may  be  satisfactorily  stated  and  defended,  and 
in  which  it  may  be  effectually  guarded  against  the  diffi- 
culties which  are  supposed  to  attend  it,  and  the  miscon- 
structions often  put  upon  it.  If  we  take  care  first  to 
learn  from  scripture  and  observation,  what  God  actually 
does,  and  in  what  manner  he  does  it ;  we  can  have  no 
difficulty  in  passing  from  this  to  a  correct  and  satisfacto- 
ry view  of  his  purposes.    In  this  way  it  is  easy  to  correct 


156 

various  mistakes  which  have  been  made  in  stating  the 
doctrine.  Do  you  ask  whether  the  doctrine  of  Election 
implies,  that  only  a  small  part  of  mankind  are  chosen  to  sal- 
vation? To  make  out  a  proper  answer,  we  first  inquire 
whether  there  is  any  thing  in  the  word  of  God,  which 
shows  this.  And  here  we  do  indeed  find  some  passages, 
which  declare  the  small  number  of  good  men  who  lived  at 
particular  times  ;  but  none  which  declare  that  there  will 
be  only  a  small  number  saved,  in  reference  to  the  whole 
human  race  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  world. 
The  word  of  God  plainly  teaches  the  contrary.  Second- 
ly. We  inquire  what  our  own  observation  and  the  histo- 
ry of  past  ages  teach.  Here  we  think  the  evidence 
clear,  that,  through  all  generations  past,  only  a  small 
part,  comparatively,  of  the  human  species,  have  been 
saved  from  sin.  But  this  proves  nothing  as  to  the  pro- 
portion that  will  be  saved,  of  our  whole  race.  There 
is  abundant  reason  to  believe  that,  in  the  ages  to  come, 
it  will  be  exceedingly  different  from  what  it  has  been 
heretofore.  Hence  we  conclude  that  the  Scripture  doc- 
trine of  Election  does  not  imply,  that  only  a  small  part 
of  mankind  are  chosen  to  salvation.  It  is  therefore  a 
manifest  error,  to  state  the  doctrine  thus.  And  any  one 
who  gets  advantage  against  it  from  such  a  view,  gets  it 
unfairly.  And  any  one  who  justifies  the  representation 
often  made  of  our  doctrine  in  this  respect,  justifies  what 
may  justly  be  called  religious  calumny. 

Again.  Does  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  Election  im- 
ply, that  the  elect  will  be  saved,  let  them  do  what  they 
will  ;  that  is,  whether  they  repent,  and  obey  the  gospel, 
or  not  ?  Here,  according  to  our  general  principle,  we 
consult  the  Scriptures  to  learn  what  God  actually  does. 
The  question  must  be  considered  in  two  views.     First : 


157 

making  salvation  mean  the  blessedness  of  heaven,  we 
inquire  whether  God  admits  men  to  this,  without  any 
regard  to  their  character  and  conduct.  Every  thing  in 
the  Bible  stands  against  such  a  notion.  Heaven  is  grant- 
ed only  to  the  penitent,  the  obedient,  the  holy.  Sec- 
ondly ;  salvation  may  denote  the  regeneration  or  first 
conversion  of  sinners.  Agreeably  to  this  view,  the  ques- 
tion stands  thus  ;  does  God  renew  sinners,  or  beg-in  the 
work  of  salvation  in  them,  on  account  of  their  previous 
character  or  conduct  ?  The  Bible  and  observation  both 
teach  that  he  does  not.  Men  possessing  all  the  varieties 
of  character  which  the  world  has  exhibited,  have  been 
converted,  or  brought  to  repentance.  If  I  should  name 
Saul  of  Tarsus  as  an  instance,  my  opponents  might  object, 
and  say,  it  was  ^miracle.  My  reply  would  be,  that  God 
works  no  miracle,  which  violates  the  principles  of  a  just 
administration  of  government  ;  and  that  Paul  makes  no 
such  distinction  between  himself  and  others,  but  express- 
ly represents  his  case,  as  a  pattern  to  others  who  should 
afterwards  believe.  1  Tim.  i.  15,  16.  So  that  his  dec- 
laration is  obviously  just,'  in  regard  to  Christians  generally, 
that  God  first  calls  them  and  saves  them  from  sin,  "not 
according  to  their  works  but  according  to  his  own  pur- 
pose and  grace."  This  we  consider  as  a  universal  truth. 
Whenever  God  first  makes  men  holy,  h«  must  do  it 
without  regard  to  any  goodness  in  them.  He  can  look 
at  no  "  works  of  righteousness  which  they  have  done," 
but  must  act  from  the  impulse  of  his  own  infinite  love. 
And  we  are  to  view  the  purpose  of  God  in  relation  to  this 
subject,  as  in  all  respects  corresponding  to  the  manner  of 
his  acting.  It  seems  then  perfectly  clear,  that  God  did 
not  determine  to  regenerate  men,  or  make  them  holy, 
from  any  foresight  of  repentance,  faith,  or  good  works. 
21 


158 

"  as  conditions  or  causes  moving  him  thereunto."  The 
first  production  of  holiness  cannot  surely  have  respect  to 
any  previous  holiness.  But  I  could  not  say,  in  the  same 
sense,  that  God  determined  to  give  men  the  blessedness 
of  heaven,  without  any  foresight  of  repentance  or  good 
works,  as  conditions;  because  the  Bible  represents  repen- 
tance and  good  works,  and  perseverance  in  them,  as 
necessary  conditions  of  final  happiness.  And  if  God  now 
in  fact  makes  them  conditions,  he  must  have  regarded 
them  as  such,  in  his  eternal  purpose.  That  act  of  di- 
vine grace  which,  so  far  as  the  conduct  of  sinners  is  con- 
cerned is  wholly  unconditional,  is,  as  I  understand  it,  the 
first  formation  of  a  holy  character,  or  the  commence- 
ment of  real  goodness  in  the  heart.  Without  enlarging 
here,  I  would  just  say,  in  accordance  with  the  general 
principle  laid  down  above,  and  more  fully  expressed  in 
my  Letters,  that  the  divine  purposes  are  just  as  condi- 
tional, and  in  the  same  sense,  as  the  divine  acts. 

If  then  there  is  any  objection  against  our  doctrine 
of  the  divine  purposes,  the  objection  must  in  reality  lie 
against  what  we  assert  to  be  matter  of  fact  in  the  divine 
administration.  The  two  things,  which  seem  to  be  re- 
garded as  particularly  objectionable,  are,  1,  That  the 
conversion  and  salvation  of  men  is  a  matter  of  mere 
grace,  all  regard  to  personal  merit  being  excluded ;  2, 
That  the  grace  of  God  in  the  conversion  of  sinners  is 
distinguishing;  in  other  words,  that  it  is  so  dispensed, 
that  of  those  who  are  equally  unworthy  of  favour,  and 
equally  deserving  of  punishment,  some  are  renewed,  and 
others  not. 

The  proper  way  to  dispose  of  the  first  of  these  par- 
ticulars, is  to  place  it  by  the  side  of  those  texts,  which 
describe  the  moral  character   and  state  of  all  men,  as 


159 

by  nature  entirely  sinful,  and  those  which  represent 
the  death  of  Christ,  as  the  grand  procuring  cause  of  all 
the  good  conferred  on  human  beings,  and  those  which 
declare,  that  salvation  is  wholly  of  grace,  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  all  works  of  righteousness.  To  these  texts,  I 
might  add  others  which  show  the  actual  views  of  good 
men  respecting  themselves  ;  and  then  might  refer  to 
the  feelings  of  Christians  generally. 

As  to  the  second  point,  namely,  the  difference  among 
men  equally  undeserving; — it  is  clear  that  we  cannot 
properly  decide  against  it;  because  with  our  limited  and 
obscure  views,  we  cannot  possibly  determine  that  infi- 
nite wisdom  may  not  see  it  to  be  necessary  to  make  such 
a  difference  in  order  to  the  highest  interests  of  the  uni- 
verse. To  say  that,  because  we  can  see  no  reasons  for 
it,  therefore  there  are  none,  would  ill  become  creatures 
like  us.  It  is  easy  to  show  from  Scripture,  that  such  a 
difference  has  been  made,  and  from  common  observa- 
tion, that  it  is  now  made.  That  divine  grace,  actually 
makes  a  difference  among  those  who  are  equally  sinful, 
renewing  some  and  not  others,  is  a  plain,  historic  fact, 
just  as  well  attested,  as  that  God  makes  a  difference, 
with  respect  to  longevity,  among  men  who  live  in  the 
same  climate,  and  possess  equal  vigor  of  natural  consti- 
tution. 

I  am  fully  aware  of  the  objection,  that  making  such  a 
difference  is  unjust.  My  first  remark  in  relation  to  this 
objection  is,  that  if  it  is  in  fact  unjust  to  make  the  differ- 
ence, it  cannot  be  admitted  that  God  would  ever  do  it 
in  a  single  instance.  For  God  will  no  more  do  injustice 
in  a  single  instance,  than  in  ten  thousand  instances.  But 
I  think  it  is  generally  admitted  by  my  opponents,  that  a 
difference  like  what  I  have  asserted,  has  been  made  in 
some  extraordinary  instances,  as  that  of  Paul  and  Mary 


160 

Magdalene.  But  can  they  mean  to  admit  that  God  does, 
in  any  instance  whatever,  commit  an  act  of  injustice  ? 

But  to  whom  is  it  unjust  for  God  to  make  such  a  dif- 
ference ?  To  those  who  are  saved  ?  Our  opponents  will 
not  say  this.  The  injustice  which  they  allege,  must  re- 
late to  those  who  perish.  But  how  is  the  bestowment  of 
gratuitous  blessings  on  others,  any  injustice  to  them?  I 
might  rather  say,  how  can  it  be  unjust  to  inflict  on  them 
an  evil  which  they  deserve,  or  to  withhold  a  favour 
which  they  deserve  not  ? 

Dr.  Ware  endeavours  to  show  that  the  method  of 
designating  the  heirs  ot  salvation,  which  the  doctrine  of 
Election  implies,  can  neither  be  reconciled  with  our 
natural  notions  of  the  moral  government  of  God,  derived 
from  the  use  of  the  faculties  he  has  given  us,  and  our 
observation  of  his  conduct  in  the  government  of  the 
world,  nor  with  what  he  has  made  known  to  us  of  his 
character,  and  purposes,  and  government  in  the  Christian 
revelation." 

His  first  objection  is  from  our  natural  conceptions  and 
feelings.  "  Following,"  he  says,  "  the  light  of  our  reason 
and  the  natural  impulse  of  our  feelings,  we  find  it  impos- 
sible to  imagine,  that  the  Author  of  our  being  can  regard 
and  treat  his  offspring  in  the  manner,  which  the  doctrine 
in  question  attributes  to  him." 

This  argument  it  is  evident  can  have  no  weight,  if  it 
is  found,  that  our  natural  conceptions  and  feelings  are 
so  disordered,  as  not  to  be  a  safe  guide.  Human  reason, 
when  freed  from  wrong  bias,  and  properly  instructed, 
and  the  feelings  of  the  heart,  when  sanctified  by  the 
divine  Spirit,  do,  in  my  apprehension,  perfectly  approve 
every  thing  contained  in  the  doctrine  of  Election.  That 
reason,  disordered  as  it  is  by  sin,  should  mistake  on  this 
subject,  is  no  more  strange,  than  that  it  should  mistake 


1GI 

on  a  thousand  other  subjects.  And  that  the  feelings  of 
a  world,  which  lieth  in  wickedness,  should  rise  up  against 
the  purpose  of  God  in  respect  to  salvation,  is  no  more 
strange,  than  that  they  should  rise  up,  as  they  do,  against 
various  dispensations  of  divine  providence.  "The  fool- 
ishness of  man  perverteth  his  way  ;  and  his  heart  fret* 
teth  against  the  Lord."  I  allow,  indeed,  that  the  doc- 
trine of  Election,  as  set  firth  by  Dr.  Ware,  p.  50,  admits 
of  no  defence.  He  represents  it  as  implying,  that  with- 
out any  foreseen  difference  of  character  and  desert  in 
men,  God  regarded  some  with  complacency  and  love, 
and  others,  with  disapprobation  and  hatred  and  wrath  ;" 
that  is,  that  God  regarded  with  complacency  that  same 
character  in  the  elect,  which,  in  the  non-elect,  he  regard- 
ed with  disapprobation  and  hatred.  This  representation 
has  no  resemblance  to  the  Orthodox  doctrine.  It  is  an 
imagination,  a  shadow.  Any  man  will  be  convinced  of 
this,  who  examines  what  Dr.  Ware  quotes  from  my 
Letters,  or  from  the  Westminster  Divines.  Our  doctrine 
is,  that  God  regards  those  sinners  who  are  to  be  saved, 
not  with  approbation,  or  complacency,  but  with  that 
benevolence,  or  compassion,  which  is  perfectly  consistent 
with  the  highest  disapprobation  ;  that  he  chooses  them 
to  salvation  through  sanctification  of  the  spirit  ;  that  he 
determines  to  renew  them,  and  so  to  make  them  objects 
of  his  complacency ;  they  being  naturally  objects  of  his 
strongest  disapprobation.  We  maintain  that  God  regards 
things  just  as  they  are.  And  any  representation  of  our 
opponents,  different  from  this,  is  at  variance  with  our 
doctrine. 

I  must  make  similar  remarks  on  another  clause,  p.  59, 
in  which  we  are  represented  as  holding  that,  "  without 
any  reference  to  the  future  use  or  abuse  of  their  nature, 
God  appoints  some  to  everlasting  happiness,  and  the  rest 


162 

to  everlasting  misery  ;  and  that  this  appointment,  entire- 
ly arbitrary,  is  the  cause,  not  the  consequence  of  holi- 
ness in  the  one,  and  of  the  defect  of  holiness  in  the  other." 
Our  doctrine  does  not  imply,  that  God  appoints  some  to 
happiness  and  others  to  misery,  without  any  reference 
to  their  future  conduct.  We  maintain  that  God  does, 
indeed,  give  the  blessedness  of  heaven  to  his  people,  as 
an  unmerited  gift, — that  is,  without  seeing  any  thing  in 
their  character  which  renders  them  deserving  of  such  a 
gift ;  but  not  without  a  regard  to  that  holiness  in  them, 
which  is  a  necessary  qualification  for  heaven.  He  does 
not  admit  them  to  heaven,  as  impenitent,  unholy.  He 
first  makes  them  holy ;  and  then  receives  them  to  heaven. 
In  his  purpose  he  determines  things  in  the  same  order. 
As  to  the  non-elect,  God  will  actually  doom  them  to 
punishment,  not  without  reference  to  their  character  and 
conduct,  but  because  they  have  been  workers  of  iniquity. 
He  will  do  it  for  this  reason,  and  for  this  only.  And  for 
this  same  reason,  he  predetermines  to  do  it.  So  the 
Westminster  Divines.  "  The  rest  of  mankind  God  was 
pleased  to  ordain  to  dishonour  and  wrath,  for  their  sm." 
If  it  is  proper  for  God  to  inflict  such  an  evil  upon  men 
for  their  sin,  it  is  proper  that  he  should  previously 
determine  to  do  it.  No  man  can  deny  this.  Yet  we, 
who  assert  this,  are  charged  with  making  God  a  monster 
of  malevolence  and  caprice.  And  to  give  this  charge 
some  colour  of  truth,  we  are  represented  as  asserting, 
that  God  appoints  men  to  everlasting  misery  without 
any  regard  to  their  conduct ; — a  thing  as  far  from  our 
belief,  as  atheism. 

It  really  excites  no  small  degree  of  surprise,  that  Dr. 
Ware  should  assert  what  follows,  as  though  it  were 
something  different  from  the  belief  of  the  Orthodox  and 
incompatible  with  the   doctrine   of  Election.     He   says, 


163 

p.  64,  "  The  final  distinctions  that  are  to  be  made  be- 
tween men,  we  are  again  and  again  told,  are  to  be  wholly 
according  to  the  difference  of  moral  character.  It  is 
that  these  are  righteous,  and  those  wicked  ;  these  have 
done  well,  and  those  have  done  ill." — This  is  a  view  of 
the  subject  upon  which  I  have  insisted  a  thousand  times, 
with  more  zeal  than  upon  almost  any  other.  This  I  con- 
sider to  be  one  of  those  plain  truths  of  revelation,  which 
ought  to  limit  and  regulate  our  conceptions  of  other  sub- 
jects, and  I  make  it  a  rule,  not  to  admit  any  views  of  the 
doctrine  of  Election  or  of  salvation  by  grace,  or  of  any 
other  doctrine,  inconsistent  with  this. 

It  would  be  aside  from  my  present  purpose  to  en- 
large on  this  topic.  The  difficulty,  at  which  Dr.  Ware 
and  others  stumble,  seems  to  arise  from  their  not  tak- 
ing into  view  the  whole  subject.  The  Westminster 
Divines  and  the  Orthodox  generally  say,  that  God  not 
only  appointed  the  elect  to  glory,  but  appointed  all 
the  means  thereunto.  This  is  the  same  as  saying, 
that  those  whom  he  purposed  to  save,  he  purposed  first 
to  sanctify  ;  or  in  the  language  of  Scripture,  he  chose 
them  to  salvation  through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit. 
How,  and  in  what  order  does  God  actually  proceed  in 
saving  sinners  ?  First,  he  provides  for  them  a  Redeem- 
er and  invites  them  to  accept  him.  Secondly,  he  calls 
them  with  a  holy  calling,  leads  them  to  repentance,  par- 
dons their  sins,  and  by  an  effectual  discipline  prepares 
them  for  heaven  ;  and  then  he  shows  his  approbation 
of  them,  and  graciously  rewards  them.  Their  holiness 
is  a  condition,  and  on  their  part,  the  only  condition  of 
their  title  to  heaven.  Such  is  the  order  of  God's  acts 
in  the  salvation  of  sinners.  Exactly  answerable  to  this 
is  the  purpose  of  God.  His  purpose,  perfectly  wise  and 
benevolent,  is  the  exact  counterpart  of  his   administra- 


164 

tion.  And  as  in  his  administration,  the  propriety  of  one 
event  depends  entirely  upon  its  connexion  with  another; 
so  it  does  in  his  purpose.  And  it  is  altogether  unjust  to 
represent  that  God  predetermines  any  event  whatever, 
without  regard  to  its  connexion  with  other  events.  It 
is  neglecting  that  order  and  connexion  of  things,  on  which 
the  character  of  the  divine  administration  essentially  de- 
pends. But  it  is  from  overlooking  or  denying  this  order 
and  connexion,  that  the  opposers  of  our  doctrine  get 
all  their  advantage  against  it.  With  these  views,  we 
cordially  subscribe  to  the  following  declaration  of  Dr. 
Ware,  though  he  seems  to  think  our  belief  very  differ- 
ent. "  So  far  are  the  reasons  of  the  final  distinction  to 
be  made  between  those  who  are  saved  and  those  who 
perish,  from  being  concealed  in  the  divine  mind,  that  no- 
thing is  more  distinctly  made  known.  The  New  Tes- 
tament is  full  of  it."  I  will  only  add,  that  it  is,  in  my 
apprehension,  revealed  with  equal  clearness,  that  God 
makes  a  difference  among  men  in  respect  of  character,  with- 
out making  known  the  reasons  of  what  he  docs. 

But  some  of  Dr.  Ware's  positions  on  this  subject  de- 
serve more  particular  consideration.  He  says,  p.  64, 
that  "  in  the  appointment  of  men  to  privileges  and 
means,  God  has  indeed  given  no  account  of  his  motives, 
nor  assigned  his  reasons  for  the  infinite  variety  that  ap- 
pears. He  has  exercised  an  absolute  sovreignty,  of 
which  no  account  is  given,  and  the  reasons  of  which  we 
are  not  competent  to  understand."  And  p.  76,  he  ex- 
presses his  approbation  of  "  a  free  and  unconditional  ap- 
pointment to  the  participation  of  privileges."  Now  if 
Dr.  Ware  will  look  through  this  subject,  as  he  has  stat- 
ed it,  he  may  possibly  discover  as  formidable  difficulties, 
as  those  which  attend  our  doctrine.  For  what  is  the 
tendency  and  use  of  means   and   privileges  ?     Does  not 


165 

their  whole  value   consist   in  their   influence    upon    the 
character  ?     The  word  of  God,  which    is    the   greatest 
and  best  of  our  privileges,  and  which  makes  the    princi- 
pal difference  between  Christians  and    heathens,  is   the 
means  of  turning  men  from   sin,   and    bringing   them  to 
love  and  obey  God.     "Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth; 
thy  word  is  truth."      When  God,  in  the  exercise  of  that 
absolute  sovereignty,  which  Dr.  Ware  ascribes   to   him, 
appoints  one  part  of  the  human  race,  say  the  inhabitants 
of  New  England,   to  the  enjoyment    of  the    Scriptures 
and  other  religious  means,  he  doubtless  does  it  to   pro- 
mote  virtue   and   piety,  or   to   render  men   holy.     And 
the  actual  consequence  of  these  privileges  is,  that  many 
become  penitent  and   holy.       Now  does  Dr.  Wrare  see 
no  difficulty  in  asserting  that  God,   by  an   act  of  "  ab- 
solute sovereignty,"  grants  to  some  in  distinction  from 
others,  privileges  which  are  designed  to  produce,  and  to 
a  certain  extent,  do  in  fact  produce,  a  sanctifying   effect 
upon  their   character  ? — privileges   without   which,   ac- 
cording  to  the   apostle,   Rom.  x,  men    cannot   believe  ? 
in  regard  to  the  general  difficulty,  where    is   the  differ- 
ence between  Dr.  Ware's  doctrine,  and  ours  ?    We  say, 
God  determines  to  bring   some  men  to  repentance,   and 
make  them  holy,  and  therefore  gives  them  those  means 
which,  by  his  blessing,  will  produce  the  effect.     Accord- 
ing to  Dr.  Wrare,  God  in  the  exercise  of  his  absolute  sove- 
reignty, appoints  some  men  in  distinction  from  others,  to 
the  participation    of  those  means,  by  which  they  are  in 
fact,  formed  to  holiness.     Their  holiness  is  the  real  and 
proper    effect   of   the    means    which   God    gives    them. 
And  he  would  doubtless  allow  too,  that  God  gives  them 
these  means,  knowing  infallibly  what  will  be  the   conse- 
quence, and  intending  that  just  such   a  desirable   conse- 
quence  shall   take    place.     Now    is   not  this,  in   effect, 
22 


16(3 

making  a  difference  among  men  in  respect  of  character, 
as  well  as  of  means  and  privileges  f  If  means  and  priv- 
ileges do  not  tend-  to  make  a  difference  in  respect  of 
character,  of  what  value  are  they  ?  Why  are  they  be- 
stowed ?  Dr.  Ware  would  doubtless  go  as  far  as  we,  in 
extolling  the  happy  consequences  of  the  Christian  reve- 
lation upon  those  communities  which  enjoy  it.  Those 
consequences  respect  moral  and  religious  character 
chiefly.  To  give  that  revelation  is  to  contribute  direct- 
ly, and  in  many  cases  effectually,  to  the  formation  of  a 
holy  character.  And  a  previous  determination  to  give 
that  revelation  is,  in  effect,  a  determination  to  make  men 
holy.  On  the  other  hand,  to  withhold  the  Sacred  Ora- 
cles and  the  other  means  of  religion,  is  to  leave  men 
without  any  reasonable  prospect  of  being  brought  to  re- 
pentance. The  truths  and  precepts  and  promises  of 
Scripture  are  the  only  medicines,  which  can  cure  the 
moral  diseases  of  men.  To  withhold  the  Scriptures  is 
to  leave  men  to  the  fatal  influence  of  those  moral  dis- 
eases, thus  rendered  incurable.  Had  the  inhabitants  of 
Tyre  and  Sodom  enjoyed  the  same  means  with  those, 
who  were  favoured  with  the  Scriptures  and  the  personal 
ministry  of  Christ ;  "  they  would  have  repented."  The 
means  would  have  been,  to  a  greater  or  less  degree,  ef- 
fectual. If  those  means  had  been  afforded  to  the  in- 
habitants of  one  of  those  places,  and  not  of  the  other  : 
a  difference  between  the  inhabitants  of  those  two  places 
in  point  of  moral  character  would  unquestionably  have 
been  the  consequence.  In  Great  Britain  and  America 
there  is  a  large  number  of  enlightened  and  sincere 
worshippers  of  God,  while  among  other  equal  portions 
of  the  human  race  in  Asia  and  Africa,  none  can  be 
found.  How  can  this  be  accounted  for  ?  According  to 
Dr.  Ware,  it  must  be  ascribed  to  difference    of  circum- 


1C7 

stances.  And  difference  of  circumstances  is  traced  bv 
him  to  "  the  absolute  sovereignty  of  God."  Thus  then 
his  scheme  stands.  In  "  the  exercise  of  absolute  sove- 
reignty," God  has  given  some  men  and  not  others,  the 
Scriptures  and  other  means.  These  means  are  given 
for  the  very  purpose  of  producing  an  effect  on  the  char- 
acter; and  to  a  great  extent  they  actually  accomplish 
this  purpose.  The  character,  thus  formed,  determines 
the  condition  of  men  in  the  future  world.  In  all  the  in- 
stances, in  which  men  are  thus  turned  from  sin,  and  fit- 
ted for  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  these  things  make  a  con- 
nected series ; — means  of  moral  culture, — formation  of 
character, — condition  in  the  future  world.  Condition  in 
the  future  world  depends  on  character  ;  character,  on 
the  enjoyment  of  means;  and  the  enjoyment  of  means, 
according  to  Dr.  Ware,  on  "  the  absolute  sovereignty  of 
Grod."  Now  just  so  far  as  these  things  are  connected, 
if  God  appoints  one,  he  does  in  effect  appoint  the  other; 
especially  as  the  connexion  itself,  whatever  it  is,  depends 
wholly  on  his  will.  And  yet  Dr.  Ware  objects  strong- 
ly to  considering  God's  appointment  as  relating  either  to 
men's  character,  or  to  their  future  condition.  But  why 
should  he  object?  What  difficulty  can  he  feel  in  ad- 
mitting that  the  appointment  of  God  relates  to  all  these, 
— and  relates  to  them  just  in  the  order  and  manner  in 
which  they  take  place  ?  The  position  which  I  would 
defend  in  relation  to  this  subject,  is,  that  the  purpose  of 
God  exactly  agrees  with  the  acts  of  his  administration. 
This  is  the  faith  of  the  Orthodox,  though  expressed  in 
different  ways.  Some  choose  to  say  that  God,  by  a  sove- 
reign act,  first  appointed  the  eternal  condition  of  the 
elect;  and  then  "  appointed  all  the  means  thereunto;" 
that  is,  purposed  to  give  them  his  word,  and,  by  means  of 
that  word,  to  make  them  holy,  and   thus    prepare  them 


168 

for  heaven.  Others  prefer  a  different  order,  and  say, 
that  God  first  determined  to  give  men  his  word  and 
make  them  holy,  and  then  to  bestow  the  rewards  of  ho- 
liness. But  both  come  to  the  same  thing.  For  accord- 
ing to  the  first,  the  design  of  God  to  receive  men  to 
heaven  must  be  connected  with  a  design  to  make  them 
holy,  and  that  must  be  connected  with  a  design  to  give 
them  the  means  of  holiness.  And  according  to  the  other, 
his  design  to  give  them  the  means  of  religion  must  be  con- 
nected with  a  design  to  produce,  by  those  means,  a  prop- 
er eifect  upon  their  character  ;  that  is,  to  make  them 
holy  ;  and  his  design  to  make  them  holy  must  be  con- 
nected with  his  design  to  make  them  happy  in  his  king- 
dom. Thus  things  are  connected  in  fact  ;  and  thus,  ac- 
cording to  both  statements,  must  they  have  been  re- 
garded in  the  divine  purpose. 

If  with  Dr.  Ware  and  others,  we  should  assert  a 
conditional  purpose  of  God,  in  regard  to  men's  charac- 
ter ;  how  should  we  be  less  encumbered  with  difficulty? 
God  determined  to  make  men  holy  on  condition  of  their 
faithfully  using  the  means  he  should  afford  them.  But 
in  respect  to  those,  who  will  actually  be  saved,  he  knew 
that  the  condition  would  be  performed.  And  he  knew 
it  would  be  performed,  not  as  a  matter  of  chance,  but 
under  the  influence  of  proper  causes, — causes  of  a  moral 
nature, — causes  wholly  under  his  control,  and  deriving 
all  their  efficacy  from  him.  Or  thus.  He  determined 
to  put  them  in  such  circumstances,  to  hold  up  such  mo- 
tives, and  to  exert  such  an  influence,  as  he  knew  would 
persuade  them,  as  moral  agents,  to  use  their  privileges 
aright,  and  to  obey  the  gospel.  Now  this  is  substantial- 
ly, though  not  in  form,  the  same  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
Orthodox.  They  maintain,  that  God  purposed  to  admit 
to  hraven  a  certain  number  of  our  race.     But  how  ?  As 


169 

unsanctified  sinners  ?  No  ;  but  in  consequence  of  their 
previous  deliverance  from  sin,  and  their  preparation  for 
heaven.  Their  possessing  real  holiness  is  an  essential 
prerequisite  to  their  being  admitted  into  heaven  ;  and, 
in  this  sense,  must  be  regarded  as  a  condition  of  their 
final  happiness.  The  Orthodox  maintain  too,  that  God 
determined  to  make  his  people  holy.  But  how?  By  a 
physical  influence,  operating  upon  them  as  machines  ? 
No  ;  but  by  an  influence  suited  to  their  moral  na- 
ture. He  determined  to  sanctify  them  through  the 
truth.  Now  this  statement  of  the  subject  is  as  honoura- 
ble to  God,  as  conformable  to  reason,  scripture,  and  fact, 
and  as  free  from  difficulty,  as  the  other. 

The  doctrine  of  Election  is  represented  by  my  oppo- 
nent as  not  reconcileable  with  the  notions  of  the  divine 
character,  "  which  we  derive  from  our  observation  of  his 
conduct  in  the  government  of  the  world  ;"  that  is,  it  is 
not  reconcileable  with  what  we  learn  from  fact.  But 
my  apprehension  is,  that  fact  helps  to  prove  the  doctrine. 
For  what  is  fact  ?  A  difference  really  exists  among  men 
in  respect  of  character.  How  is  this  difference  to  be 
accounted  for?  If  it  is  original,  or  if  it  springs  from  any 
thing  original  in  our  nature,  it  must  be  traced  to  the 
purpose  and  agency  of  the  Author  of  our  nature.  This 
Dr.  Ware  would  by  no  means  allow  ;  and  of  course  must 
say  that  the  good  and  the  bad  are  originally  of  the  same 
character.  I  ask  then  for  the  cause  of  the  present 
difference.  Is  it  owing,  as  Dr.  Ware  in  another  place 
suggests,  to  education,  example,  and  other  outward  cir- 
cumstances ?  All  these  circumstances  are  ordered  by 
divine  providence.  In  the  appointment  of  men  to  these, 
Dr.  Ware  asserts,  that  God  "exercises  an  absolute  sove- 
reignty." And  if  it  is  more  or  less  owing  to  means, 
privileges,  and  outward  circumstances,   that  somo   men 


170 

are  holy,  while  others  are  not  ;  the  difference  is,  in  the 
same  degree,  to  be' traced  to  what  Dr.  Ware  calls  the 
"  absolute  sovereignty  of  God."  But  the  characters  of 
men,  who  have  the  same  outward  privileges,  differ;  and 
it  will  be  said  by  Dr.  Ware,  that  this  difference  depends 
on  the  manner  in  which  they  use  the  means  afforded 
them.  Some  men  voluntarily  use  their  faculties  and 
privileges  aright,  and  so  acquire  the  habits  of  real  good- 
ness ;  while  others  abuse  their  faculties  and  privileges, 
and  exhibit  the  marks  of  obstinate  wickedness.  Suppose 
now  this  voluntary  conduct  to  be  the  proximate  cause  of 
the  difference  existing,  among  men  in  regard  to  character, 
and  that  a  part  of  the  human  race  become  holy,  because 
they  rightly  use  their  privileges.  This  right  use  of  their 
privileges  is,  then,  a  fact, — and  a  fact  on  which  their 
everlasting  interest  depends.  How  is  this  fact  to  be 
accounted  for  ?  Is  it  owing  to  the  influence  of  any  causes, 
either  physical  or  moral  ? — Does  it  result  from  their  dis- 
position or  choice  ?  How  then  is  this  disposition  or  choice 
to  be  accounted  for  ?  The  Scripture  accounts  for  it  by 
the  divine  influence.  It  represents  God  as  working  in 
men  both  to  will,  and  to  do.  If  Dr.  Ware  is  satisfied 
with  this  mode  of  accounting  for  the  fact,  the  controversy 
is  ended.  But  if  he  should  say,  that  the  gracious  influ- 
ence of  God  is  always  granted  on  the  condition  of  men's 
having  previously  some  right  desire,  or  choice,  or  con- 
duct ;  I  would  ask  again,  how  we  are  to  account  for  that 
desire,  choice,  or  conduct,  which  is  not  produced  by  the 
spirit  of  God  ?  Where  shall  we  look  for  the  cause  ?  Is 
the  right  desire  or  choice  owing  to  the  influence  of 
motives  ?  And  is  it  not  God,  who  has  given  men  a  mind 
suited  to  be  influenced  by  motives  ?  And  does  he 
not  so  order  things  in  his  providence,  that  those  motives 


171 

shall  be  presented  before  them,  which  will  effectually 
excite  such  a  choice  or  desire  ? 

Thus  common  observation  first  leads  us  to  notice 
what  exists  in  fact, — what  God  does  in  his  providence 
with  respect  to  the  characters,  and  consequently  with 
respect  to  the  future  condition  of  men  ;  and  from  this 
Ave  infer  what  his  design  was. 

To  the  following  remark  of  Dr.  Ware  it  is  hardly 
necessary  to  make  any  additional  reply.  He  says,  that 
according  to  our  doctrine,  what  men  are  to  be  and  how 
they  are  to  act,  is  determined  beforehand,  without  any 
reference  to  their  exertions.  A  strange  notion  truly, 
since  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  that  men  should  be  any 
thing,  or  act  in  any  way  ivhatever,  without  including  their 
exertions. 

Dr.  Ware  thinks  that  God's  sovereign  appointment 
of  the  everlasting  condition  of  men  is  "  inconsistent  with 
all  that  implies  the  influence  of  motives."  But  he  could 
not  have  thought  so,  if  he  had  only  considered  the  divine 
purpose  as  agreeing  exactly  with  fact ;  and,  finding  it  a 
fact  that  moral  agents  are,  and  from  the  nature  of  the 
case  must  be,  influenced  by  motives,  had  concluded,  that 
God's  appointment  was,  that  they  should  be  influenced  by 
motives  just  as  they  are.  The  position  of  our  opponents 
if  well  examined,  will  evidently  amount  to  this, — that 
God's  determining  that  men  shall  act  from  motives,  hin- 
ders them  from  acting  in  this  manner  ;  that  his  deter- 
mining that  they  shall  be  moral,  accountable  agents, 
makes  it  impossible  they  should  be  so.  Whereas  we 
have  been  very  much  inclined  to  think,  that  God's  deter- 
mination, if  it  has  any  influence,  must  tend  to  accomplish 
the  thing  determined,  not  to  prevent  it. 

This  subject  is  placed  in  a  very  clear  light  by  those 
texts  which  show,  that   men   have  acted    with   perfect 


172 

freedom  and  voluntariness,  while  fulfilling  the  divine 
purpose.  The  apostles  declare,  Acts  iv.  26,  27,  28,  that 
the  murderers  of  Christ  did  what  the  hand  and  counsel  of 
God  determined  before  to  be  done.  But  did  they  act 
without  motives  ?  Here  is  a  plain  case.  In  those  very 
actions,  which  were  predetermined,  they  were  influenced 
by  motives,  and  were  in  all  respects  moral,  accountable 
agents.  Nor  is  this  a  singular  case.  So  far  as  our 
subject  is  concerned,  it  is  on  a  level  with  a  thousand 
other  instances  of  wickedness, — yea,  with  all  the  instan- 
ces which  have  ever  occurred.  From  the  single  case  of 
Pharaoh,  the  Apostle  draws  arguments  to  establish  a 
general  principle  ;  that  is,  he  considers  the  conduct  of 
God  in  respect  to  Pharaoh,  as  proving  that  the  same 
conduct  would  be  proper  in  respect  to  others.  So  I 
reason  here.  If  God  predetermined  the  actions  of  those 
who  crucified  the  Saviour,  he  must  have  predetermined 
the  actions  of  other  sinners.  This  none  can  reasonably 
deny,  unless  they  can  offer  some  satisfactory  reason  why 
God  should  determine  the  actions  of  Christ's  enemies, 
but  not  of  others.  And  if  the  enemies  of  Christ,  whose 
actions  were  predetermined,  were  still  influenced  by 
motives,  and  were  in  the  highest  degree  moral  agents  ; 
so  may  others  be,  whose  actions  were  predetermined. 

In  some  respects,  Dr.  Ware  well  illustrates  the 
general  principle  for  which  I  contend,  in  a  passage  of  his 
Fourth  Letter,  p.  78.  Speaking  of  the  design  of  God 
in  raising  up  Pharaoh,  he  says  ;  "  How  did  God  actually 
show  his  power  in  him,  and  make  him  the  instrument  of 
his  glory  ?  It  was  by  giving  him  the  opportunity  to  act 
out  his  character ;  by  allowing  him  full  scope  for  dis- 
playing the  incorrigible  obstinacy  of  his  disposition,  and 
by  then  inflicting  upon  him  exemplary  punishment  for 
the  instruction  and    warning  of  mankind  ;   thus   making 


173 

him  the  instrument  of  promoting  some  of  the  best  pur- 
poses of  heaven,  in  the  free  and  voluntary  exercise  of 
his  power."  Here  the  perfect  consistency  of  free  and 
voluntary  action  with  the  accomplishment  of  God's  pur- 
pose is  fully  asserted. 

It  will  be  seen  then,  how  little  reason  Dr.  Ware  has 
for  what  he  has  written,  p.  61,  62,  in  which  he  repre- 
sents the  Orthodox  doctrine  as  inconsistent  "  with  all 
that  implies  the  influence  of  motives" — "  with  all  that 
implies  guilt,  ill-desert,  blame-worthiness  in  the  disobedi- 
ent"— "  and  with  all  those  promises,  threatenings,  warn- 
ings, &c.  which  imply  in  those  to  whom  they  are  address- 
ed, a  power  of  being  influenced." — If  the  divine  purpose 
leaves  men,  I  should  rather  say  makes  them,  Jree,  moral 
agents,  as  we  see  is  implied  in  the  case  of  Pharaoh  and 
the  murderers  of  Christ;  they  are  certainly  capable  of 
being  influenced  by  motives,  so  that  promises,  threats, 
warnings,  &c.  are  proper  and  useful ;  and  if  guilt  can 
exist  in  any  case,  it  may  here. 

Dr.  Ware  says,  p.  62,  that  this  doctrine  "  represents 
God  as  unjust,— exacting  endless  punishment  for  sins  com- 
mitted in  following  the  nature  which  he  had  given  us, 
and  acting  in  pursuance  of  his  decree."  I  reply.  If  sin 
exists,  it  must  be  committed  in  following  our  dispositions, 
or  the  propensities  of  our  nature.  And  I  have  before 
shown,  that  the  circumstance  of  our  dispositions  or  pro- 
pensities being  natural  or  original,  cannot  render  them, 
or  the  actions  resulting  from  them,  less  criminal.  As 
to  the  other  part  ;  can  Dr.  Ware,  after  giving  the  expla- 
nation, above  quoted,  of  the  divine  conduct  respecting 
Pharaoh,  think  it  unjust  for  God  to  punish  men  for  sins 
they  commit,  while  acting  in  pursuance  of  his  purpose  ? 
Did  not  Joseph's  brethren,  though  their  hearts  meant 
not  so,  act  in  pursuance  of  God's  purpose  ?  Did  not 
23 


174 

those  who  carried  the  Israelites  into  captivity,  and 
those  who  murdered  the  Prince  of  life,  act  according 
to  God's  purpose  ?  And  was  God  unjust  and  cruel  in 
punishing  them  ? 

I  regret  that  Dr.  Ware  has  made  use  of  expres- 
sions and  arguments  like  those  above  recited.  They 
are  such  as  men  of  liberal  minds,  who  examine  sub- 
jects profoundly,  and  judge  without  prejudice,  ought 
never  to  employ.  It  would  be  easy  enough,  by  means 
equally  plausible,  to  oppose  those  doctrines  of  Scripture, 
which  Dr.  Ware  believes,  and  to  discredit  the  Scripture 
itself. 

I  will  allow  myself  here  to  turn  aside  from  the  book, 
to  which  I  am  attempting  a  reply,  just  to  notice  the* 
ravings  of  one  of  the  most  able  opposers  of  the  doctrine 
of  Election.  To  those  who  assert  this  doctrine,  he  says  ; 
"  You  represent  God  as  worse  than  the  Devil ;  more 
false,  more  cruel,  more  unjust.  But  you  say,  you  will 
prove  it  by  Scripture.  Hold  !  What  will  you  prove  by 
Scripture?  that  God  is  worse  than  the  Devil  ?"-"Upon 
the  supposition  of  this  doctrine,  one  might  say  to  our 
adversary  the  Devil,  thou  fool,  why  dost  thou  roar  about 
any  longer?  Hearest  thou  not  that  God  hath  taken  thy 
work  out  of  thy  hands,  and  that  he  doth  it  more  effec- 
tually ?" — "  Oh  how  would  the  enemy  of  God  and  man 
rejoice  to  hear  these  things  were  so!  How  would  he  lift 
up  his  voice  and  say,  to  your  tents,  0  Israel !  flee  from 
the  face  of  this  God. — But  whither  will  ye  flee?  Into 
heaven  ?  He  is  there.  Down  to  hell  ?  He  is  there  also. 
Ye  cannot  flee  from  an  omnipresent,  omnipotent  tyrant." 
My  apology  for  introducing  these  extracts  from 
Wesley  is,  that  the  Reviewers  in  the  Christian  Disciple 
for  Nov.  and  Dec.  1820,  profess  to  have  perfect  fellow- 
ship,  on  this  subject,   with  one,    whom  they  consider 


175 

as  mad  with  enthusiasm,  and  call  this  strain  of  violent 
misrepresentation,  scurrility,  and  outrage,  "  an  over- 
whelming flood  of  eloquence  as  well  as  argument." 

Our  opposers  are  much  inclined  to  look  at  the  diffi- 
culties and  objections,  which  attend  our  doctrine  of  the 
divine  purpose  respecting  the  characters  of  men.  Why 
will  they  not  pay  equal  attention  to  the  difficulties,  which 
attend  the  denial  of  this  doctrine?  If  they  deny  that 
the  characters  of  men  exist  in  accordance  with  the  eter- 
nal purpose  of  God  ;  they  must  maintain  either  that 
God  had  no  design  at  all  in  regard  to  their  characters, 
or  else  that  he  designed  they  should  be  different  from 
what  they  really  are.  Will  you  say,  God  had  no  deter- 
mination respecting  the  moral  characters  of  men  ?  Then 
he  could  have  had  no  determination  respecting  any  of 
those  natural  or  moral  causes,  which  contribute  to  form 
their  character.  And  if  so,  then  he  could  have  had  no 
determination  respecting  "  the  privileges,  means,  and  ex- 
ternal condition"  of  men,  to  which  it  is  perfectly  obvi- 
ous their  characters  are  generally  owing.  But  Dr.  Ware 
asserts  that  God  has  appointed  men's  privileges,  means 
and  external  condition,  with  absolute  sovereignty.  So  it 
comes  to  this;  he  has  appointed  every  thing,  which  can 
operate  as  a  cause  or  means  of  moral  character — every 
thing  to  which  the  formation  of  character  can  be  traced, 
but  has  carefully  abstained  from  determining  what  the 
character  shall  be.  And  why  ?  Because  his  determining 
what  it  shall  be  would  be  inconsistent  with  its  being 
what  he  determined. 

But  if  you  say,  God  had  a  determination  respecting 
the  characters  of  men,  but  that  his  determination  was 
that  they  should  be  different  from  what  they  are ;  then 
God  is   disappointed.     But  every  disappointment  must 


176 

be  owing  to  some  defect  of  wisdom  or  power,  and  of 
course  must  belong  to  an  imperfect  being.  Let  any  man 
who  denies  our  doctrine,  take  which  position  he  pleas- 
es,— either  that  God  has  no  design  at  all  respecting 
men's  characters;  or,  that  he  designed  they  should  be 
different  from  what  they  are  in  fact  ;  and  let  him  com- 
pare the  difficulties  attending  either  of  these  positions 
with  those  which  attend  the  only  remaining  position, 
namely,  that  of  the  Orthodox  above  stated. 

I  pass  over  many  things  in  Dr.  Ware's  Letters,  of 
the  same  general  nature  with  those  on  which  I  have  al- 
ready remarked,  and  proceed  to  notice  the   manner  in 
■which  he   attempts  to   invalidate    my  arguments  from 
Scripture. 

My  first  argument  was  founded  on  those  passages, 
particularly  in  John  xvii,  in  which  Christ  speaks  of  a  part 
of  mankind,  as  given  him  of  the  Father.  As  an  exam- 
ple I  quoted  verse  2.  "As  thou  hast  given  him  power 
over  all  flesh,  that  he  should  give  eternal  life  to  as  many 
as  thou  hast  given  him,"  The  sense  which  I  gave  to 
the  text  was  this ;  that  the  Father  has  given  to  Christ 
a  part  of  the  human  race,  and  that  those  who  are  thus 
given  to  Christ,  are  the  persons  who  shall  have  eternal 
life. 

Dr.  Ware  thinks  our  Saviour  could  not  have  meant 
to  assert  the  common  doctrine  of  Election  in  this  text, 
because  in  Chapter  xv,  "  he  addresses  the  same  persons 
of  whom  he  here  speaks  as  given  him  of  the  Father,  in 
language  implying  that  they  might  abide  in  him  and 
bring  forth  fruit,  or  failing  to  abide  in  him,  might  be 
taken  away,"  &c.  "  But,"  he  says,  "  according  to  the 
doctrine  in  question,  there  could  be  no  such  contingency 
in  the  case."  The  reasoning  is  this.  If  God  had  a  real 
design  to  save  those  particular  persons,  whom  he  finally 


177 

does  save,  Christ  could  not  have  exhorted  his  disciples 
as  he  did,  to  abide  in  him,  and  enforced  his  exhortation 
by  telling  them  the  plain  truth  as  to  the  consequences  of 
their  faithful  adherence  to  him,  and  the  consequences  of 
their  forsaking  him.  Which  is  the  same  as  saying,  if  God 
does  certainly  determine  to  save  a  particular  number  of 
human  beings,  he  cannot  speak  to  them  in  the  language 
of  direction,  exhortation,  and  warning, — cannot  address 
them  with  motives, — cannot  do  any  thing  to  excite  their 
hopes  or  fears,  or  persuade  them  to  obedience.  And  all 
this  seems  to  me  to  be  the  same  as  saying, — if  God  de- 
termines to  train  up  a  certain  number  of  men  for  eter- 
nal life,  he  cannot  use  proper  means  to  carry  his  deter- 
mination into  effect.  I  must  confess  that  all  the  reason, 
which  it  has  pleased  God  to  give  me,  leads  to  a  conclu- 
sion directly  opposite.  If  God  really  determines  to 
guide  a  certain  number  of  men  in  the  way  to  heaven,  it 
seems  reasonable  to  expect,  that  he  will  use  the  means 
best  suited  to  accomplish  his  determination.  And  ad- 
mitting those  who  are  to  be  saved,  to  be  moral  agents,  I 
should  think  that  God  would  of  course,  make  use  of  all 
those  precepts,  warnings,  promises  and  threats,  by  which 
moral  agents  are  most  effectually  influenced.  What 
would  Dr.  Ware  say,  if  we  should  apply  the  reasoning 
he  relies  upon  in  this  case,  to  events  in  the  natural 
world.  The  reasoning  would  stand  thus.  If  God  cer- 
tainly determines  to  give  us  an  abundant  harvest,  it  will 
be  altogether  inconsistent  for  him  to  cause  the  sun  to 
shine  or  rain  to  descend,  or  to  use  any  other  means  to 
secure  that  harvest  which  he  has  determined  to  give. 
And  I  am  sure  it  is  equally  absurd  to  reason  thus  in  re- 
gard to  the  moral  world.  If  God  determines  to  accom- 
plish an  event  of  a  moral  nature,  I  ask  whether  it  is  con- 
sistent  that   he  should  use  any  means  whatever ;    and 


178 

then,  whether  it  is  consistent  for  him  to  use  those  which 
are  suited  to  moral  agents.  The  remaining  question 
would  be,  whether  warnings,  exhortations,  promises,  and 
threats,  are  suited  to  influence  moral  agents.  It  must 
be  perfectly  obvious,  that  they  can  be  influenced  in  no 
other  way;  and  that  if  God  determines  to  bring  a  larg- 
er or  smaller  number  of  men  to  serve  him  faithfully,  and 
so  prepare  them  for  future  happiness,  he  must  influence 
them  to  do  it  by  such  means  as  those  above  mentioned, 
or  not  at  all ; — unless  men  cease  to  be  moral  agents,  and 
become  capable  of  being  moved  like  senseless  machines. 
We  see  then,  that  the  very  thing  which  Dr.  Ware  thinks 
conclusive  against  the  doctrine  of  Election,  naturally  and 
necessarily  results  from  it,  supposing  it  to  be  true.  We 
see  also,  that  all  the  contingency,  which  is  implied  in 
the  use  of  exhortations,  conditional  promises,  and  threats, 
is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  doctrine  of  Election. 

If  it  were  necessary  still  farther  to  defend  the  posi- 
tion I  have  taken  in  regard  to  the  use  of  means,  I 
could  easily  adduce  particular  instances,  in  which  it 
appears  from  Scripture,  that  God  has  actually  determin- 
ed the  characters  and  actions  of  men,  and  yet,  in  those 
very  instances,  has  made  use  of  all  the  means  suited  to 
moral  agents,  and  made  use  of  them  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  carry  his  determination  into  effect. 

Those  who  urge  the  above-named  objection  against 
our  doctrine,  commit  one  great  mistake  ;  that  is,  they 
do  not  consider  that  the  divine  purposes,  like  all  parts 
of  the  divine  administration,  respect  men,  as  moral  agents, 
and  are  accomplished  by  a  system  of  moral  means, 
exactly  suited  to  operate  upon  such  agents.  Did  they 
not  lose  sight  of  this  plain  principle,  they  could  not  help 
seeing,  that  it  is  just  as  consistent  with  our  doctrine  for 
God  to  use  warnings,  exhortations,  promises  and  threats 


179 

to  influence  his  people,  as  to  give  them  commands,  or  to 
use  proper  means  to  accomplish  any  of  his  designs. 

Another  argument  which  Dr.  Ware  urges  against  my 
reasoning  from  the  passage  in  John  xvii,  is,  that  in  a 
previous  chapter,  we  meet  with  the  following  sentence ; 
"  For  the  Father  himself  loveth  you,  because  ye  have 
loved  me,"  &c.  John  xvi.  27.  "Here,"  Dr.  Ware  says, 
"  the  love  of  God  is  represented,  not  as  the  cause,  but 
as  the  consequence  of  the  faith  and  love  of  the  disciples." 
This  view  is  admitted,  so  far  as  the  meaning  of  this 
particular  text  is  concerned.  But  if  we  would  understand 
the  subject  fully,  we  must  compare  this  text  with  others, 
particularly  with  two  passages  from  the  same  writer ; 
1  John  iv.  10,  19.  "  Not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that 
he  loved  us."  "  We  love  him  because  he  first  loved 
ws."  Dr.  Ware  thinks  if  our  doctrine  of  Election  or 
distinguishing  grace  is  true,  "  it  is  impossible  to  see  with 
what  propriety  it  could  be  said  of  the  elect,  that  God 
loved  them,  because  of  their  love  to  Christ  ;  for  his 
distinguishing  love  was,  by  that  supposition,  the  cause  of 
their  love."  I  contend  that  in  a  most  important  sense, 
it  was  the  cause  ;  and  that  in  the  two  texts  last  quoted, 
it  is  clearly  represented  in  this  light;  though  in  another 
sense,  it  is  as  represented  in  the  passage  cited  by  Dr. 
Ware  ;  that  is,  God's  love  to  Christians  does,  in  the 
order  of  nature,  follow  their  love  to  him.  Now  to  avoid 
a  contradiction  between  the  different  passages  above  cit- 
ed, we  must  refer  to  a  very  obvious  distinction  between 
the  different  significations  of  the  word  love,  as  used  in 
these  passages.  When  we  speak  of  the  love  of  God  in 
the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  in  the  texts  quoted  from  the 
Epistle,  and  elsewhere,  that  is,  as  benevolence  towards  sin- 
ners, operating  powerfully  for  their  salvation,  we  must  con- 
sider it  as  the  cause  of  their  love  to  him,  yea,  the  cause  of 


180 

every  thing  excellent  in  their  character,  and  every  thing 
happy  in  their  condition.  And  is  it  not  common  for  devout 
Christians,  of  all  denominations,  to  attribute  all  good  in 
creatures  to  the  benevolence  or  goodness  of  God  ?  The 
love  of  God  in  this  sense  is  mere  good-will,  kindness, 
compassion  ;  and  is  exercised  towards  men,  considered 
as  sinners,  or  enemies.  Of  course,  it  implies  no  appro- 
bation  of  their  character,  no  complacency  in  them.  But 
the  word,  as  used  John  xvi.  27,  evidently  denotes  com- 
placency, or  approbation,  and  actions  expressive  of  it,  and 
so  necessarily  presupposes  moral  good  in  those  who  are 
its  objects.  They  enjoy  the  divine  approbation,  because 
they  love  Christ.  The  love  of  God,  thus  understood,  is 
the  reward  of  our  faith  and  piety  ;  but  it  has  no  respect 
to  the  doctrine  of  Election.;  and  the  passage  in  John 
xvi.  27,  can  no  more  disprove  the  doctrine,  than  any 
other  passage  in  the  Bible.  Thus  the  error,  which  lies 
at  the  bottom  of  Dr.  Ware's  reasoning  on  this  subject, 
becomes  obvious.  He  says  ;  "  If  by  those  who  are  given 
to  Christ  we  are  to  understand  all  to  whom  Christ  will 
actually  give  eternal  life,  and  this  appointment  to  Chris- 
tian faith  and  eternal  life  is  wholly  independent  of  any 
thing  in  them  as  the  ground  of  this  distinction  from  the 
rest  of  the  world  -,  it  is  impossible  to  see  with  what 
propriety  it  could  be  said,  that  God  loved  them,  because 
of  their  love  to  Christ."  But  how  impossible  ?  God's 
love,  here  spoken  of,  most  evidently  does  not  signify  his 
original  act  in  choosing  men  to  salvation,  but  his  appro- 
bation of  them  and  his  peculiar  favour  towards  them,  in 
consequence  of  their  faithful  attachment  to  Christ.  But 
how  did  he  regard  them  before  they  had  any  love  to 
Christ,  and  when  they  were  enemies  ?  Did  he  not  look 
upon  them  with  benevolence  and  compassion,  and  send  his 
Son  to  die  for  them,  and  his  spirit  to  renew  them  ?  It  is 


181 

impossible  for  any  one  to  show  the  least  incompatibility 
between  God's  originally  exercising  infinite  benevolence 
towards  a  part  of  mankind,  and  choosing  them  to  holiness 
and  salvation,  independently  of  any  thing  in  them  as  the 
ground  of  this  distinction,  and  his  regarding  them  after- 
wards with  complacency,  and  manifesting  himself  to  them 
as  their  friend,  on  account  of  their  love  and  obedience  to 
Christ. 

Dr.  Ware  has  another  passage,  p.  68,  which  must 
not  pass  without  notice.  He  represents  "coming  to 
Christ,  believing  on  him,  &c.  as  events  not  flowing  from 
a  sovereign  appointment  of  God,  but  the  result  of  the 
faithful  use  of  means,  in  the  exercise  of  a  right  disposi- 
tion, and  that  the  difference  of  character  thus  appearing 
between  Christians  and  others,  is  the  ground,  not  the 
consequence  of  their  being  given  to  Christ."  Now  I  ask 
whether  it  is  not  a  doctrine  clearly  taught  in  many  parts 
of  the  Bible,  that  believing  in  Christ,  and  the  possession 
of  a  right  disposition  and  character,  are  fairly  to  be 
ascribed  to  the  divine  influence  as  the  cause  ?  And  if  so, 
whether  the  effectual  operation  of  that  cause,  being  a 
divine  act,  must  not  have  been  before  settled  in  the 
divine  mind  ?  Nothing  can  be  more  evident,  than  that 
the  text,  John  vi.  37,  represents  coming  to  Christ  as  the 
consequence  of  being  given  to  Christ.  "  All  that  the 
Father  giveth  me,  shall  come  to  me."  Their  coming 
follows  as  the  consequence  of  their  being  given.  So  this 
mode  of  expression  always  means.  There  is  an  instance 
of  it  in  the  same  verse.  "Him  that  cometh  unto  me  I 
will  in  no  wise  cast  out."  His  not  being  cast  out,  i.  e. 
his  being  accepted,  is  the  consequence  of  his  coming  to 
Christ.  And  it  is  equally  evident  from  this  passage,  that 
men's  corning  to  Christ  is  the  consequence  of  their  being 
given  to  Christ.  The  mode  of  expression,  here  used, 
24 


182 

always  denotes,  that  the  second  thing  mentioned  is  the 
consequence  of  the  first.  Thus  we  say,  those  who 
repent,  shall  be  forgiven.  All  who  seek  God,  shall  find 
him.  All  who  are  pure  in  heart,  shall  see  God.  Who- 
soever believeth,  shall  have  life.  In  all  such  cases,  the 
meaning  is  undoubted.  And  so  I  think  Dr.  Ware  would 
understand  the  phrase  in  John  vi.  37,  if  instead  of  forc- 
ing the  passage  to  agree  with  a  preconceived  opinion,  he 
would  attend  to  the  established  principles  of  interpreta- 
tion. Suppose  we  should  find  in  any  book  the  following 
declaration  ;  all  who  hear  the  gospel,  shall  be  converted. 
Or  this  •  all  who  are  born  in  a  christian  land,  shall  be  saved. 
Could  we  doubt  that  the  writer  meant  in  each  case  to 
assert  that  the  latter  would  follow  as  the  consequence 
of  the  former,  and  that  the  former  would  have  a  special 
influence  in  producing  the  latter.  But  Dr.  Ware  inverts 
the  two  parts  of  a  sentence  just  like  these,  and  makes 
that  which  is  set  forth  as  the  consequence,  to  be  the 
antecedent,  or  cause.  The  text  is ;  "  All  that  the 
Father  giveth  me,  shall  come  to  me."  Dr.  Ware's  sense 
of  it  is  ;  all  who  come  to  me,  the  Father  shall  give  me.  He 
says,  "  those  only  are  given  him  of  the  Father,  who  come 
to  Christ." 

I  would  just  remark  that  the  construction  which  Dr. 
Ware  has  put  upon  the  text  quoted,  p.  70,  at  the  bottom, 
overlooks  the  idiom  of  the  New  Testament,  as  might 
easily  be  shown. 

The  next  passage  I  cited  to  prove  the  doctrine  of 
Election,  was  Eph.  i,  3 — 11.  On  supposition  that  the 
Apostle  actually  believed  the  doctrine  as  we  do,  it  is 
inconceivable  that  he  could  have  asserted  it  more 
plainly  and  emphatically,  than  he  does  in  this  passage. 
He  teaches  us  that  God  had  a  purpose,  or  choice, 
respecting  those  who  are  saved ;  and  he  teaches  us  what 


183 

the  purpose  or  choice  was.  "  He  hath  blessed  us,  &c. — 
according  as  he  hath  chosen  us  in  hi?n,  that  we  should  be 
holy — having  predestinated  us  to  the  adoption  of  children* 
#r."  Here  also  we  learn  the  date  of  the  divine  purpose  ; 
"  before  the  foundation  of  the  world."  2  Tim.  i.  9,  is  of 
the  same  general  import.  "  Who  hath  saved  us  and 
called  us,  not  according  to  our  works,  but  according  to 
his  own  purpose  and  grace" 

As  the  principle  concerned  in  the  interpretation  of 
these  passages  must  be  considered  of  great  consequence, 
and  must  determine  the  sense  of  other  passages  also,  in 
relation  to  the  same  subject ;  I  ask  the  attention  of  the 
reader  to  a  particular  investigation. 

Dr.  Ware  undertakes  to  prove  that  the  passage  in 
Ephesians  has  no  relation  to  the  doctrine  of  Election. 
And  one  argument  which  he  adduces  to  prove  this,  is, 
that  the  passage  refers  not  to  individuals  as  such,  but  to 
the  Christian  community. 

I  will  begin  the  examination  of  this  subject  by  admit- 
ting what  Dr.  Ware  supposes,  namely,  that  the  passage 
relates  to  the  Christian  community,  or,  to  Christians  taken 
collectively.  Now  does  this  supposition  remove  any 
difficulty  ?  If  it  is  inconsistent  for  God  to  choose  individ- 
uals to  holiness  and  salvation  ;  it  is  surely  not  less  incon- 
sistent for  him  to  choose  to  the  same  blessings  a  large 
society  of  men.  If  any  purpose  or  conduct  relative  to 
individuals  is  improper ;  certainly  it  cannot  be  less 
improper,  because  it  relates  to  a  community,  comprising 
a  lar<re  number  of  individuals.  So  that  whatever  the 
purpose  or  conduct,  which  Dr.  Ware  supposes  to  be 
ascribed  to  God  in  this  passage  ;  that  same  purpose  or 
conduct  must  be  as  just  and  proper  in  regard  to  individ- 
uals, as  in  regard  to  a  community.  It  seems  to  me 
impossible   that   any  man  should  doubt    this.     On    this 


184 

account  it  has  long  appeared  to  irie  utterly  irrelevant, 
for  the  opposers  of  our  doctrine  to  introduce  this  distinc- 
tion between  the  choice  of  individuals,  and  the  choice  of 
a  community.  If  in  any  respect  a  divine  purpose  in 
relation  to  individuals,  is  improper  ;  that  divine  purpose 
is,  in  the  same  respect,  equally  improper  in  relation  to  a 
community.  There  is  no  principle  in  ethics  or  theology, 
according  to  which  an  act  of  injustice  or  partiality 
towards  individuals,  changes  its  character  when  directed 
towards  a  community. 

The  fact  that  a  distinction  is  made,  occasions  cer- 
tainly as  great  difficulty,  when  considered  in  relation  to 
a  community,  as  in  relation  to  individuals.  It  is  indeed 
an  affair  of  great  magnitude  for  particular  persons  to  be 
chosen  to  enjoy  important  blessings,  while  others  are 
passed  by,  and  left  without  those  blessings.  But  cer- 
tainlv  it  is  an  affair  of  no  less  magnitude,  for  a  commu- 
nity,  or  large  society  of  men  to  be  chosen  to  enjoy  those 
blessings,  and  yet  other  communities  be  left  without 
them.  Whether  the  blessings  intended  are  temporal  or 
spiritual,  the  distinction  which  the  divine  purpose  makes 
must  occasion  as  great  difficulty,  when  it  relates  to  com- 
munities, as  when  it  relates  to  individuals  ; — as  great 
surely,  when  it  relates  to  the  larger  object,  as  when  it 
relates  to  the  less.  I  confess  1  should  much  sooner 
think  of  objecting  to  the  purpose  of  God,  or  any  distinc- 
tion he  makes  in  his  providence  respecting  large  bodies 
of  men,  than  respecting  individuals.  I  say  then  that 
whatever  may  be  the  nature  of  that  eternal  purpose  of 
God  which  is  spoken  of  in  the  text,  and  whatever  bless- 
ings it  secures  to  some  in  distinction  from  others  ;  it  is 
wholly  without  use  for  Dr.  Ware  to  say,  that  purpose 
relates  to  communities,  not  to  individuals ;  since  upon 
any  supposition  the  same  divine  purpose  or  conduct  can- 


185 

not  be  less  objectionable,  when  it  relates  to  communities 
or  nations,  than  when  it  relates  to  individuals.  It  is  the 
opinion  of  Dr.  Ware,  that  the  divine  purpose  or  choice 
spoken  of,  refers  to  temporal  blessings,  or  to  religious 
privileges,  means  and  opportunities.  Be  it  so  then,  just 
as  he  supposes.  I  ask  what  occasion  he  can  have  to 
represent  it  as  relating  to  communities,  and  not  to  indi- 
viduals;  since  he  must  be  as  well  satisfied,  as  I  am,  that 
suck  a  divine  purpose  may  with  perfect  propriety  relate 
to  individuals.  And  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  divine 
purpose  spoken  of  by  the  Apostle  is  to  be  under- 
stood as  securing  the  actual  bestowment  of  spiritu- 
al blessings,  that  is,  sanctification,  pardon,  and  eternal 
life,  upon  those  who  are  its  objects  ;  then  surely  Dr. 
Ware  must  find  as  many  difficulties  in  supposing,  that 
such  a  purpose  relates  to  a  community,  as  to  individuals. 
Why  then  has  this  distinction  been  made  ?  What  end 
does  it  answer  ?  And  why  is  it  so  much  relied  upon  by 
Dr.  Ware  and  others  in  their  reasoning  against  the  doc- 
trine of  Election  ? 

Thus  I  have  endeavoured  to  show  that  if  the  purpose 
of  God  mentioned  above,  should  be  understood  to  refer 
not  to  individuals,  but  to  the  Christian  community  ;  it 
would  still  be  of  no  use  to  Dr.  Ware's  argument.  But 
there  are  reasons,  which  seem  to  me  quite  conclusive 
against  this. 

First.  A  community  is  a  collection  of  individu- 
als, who  retain  perfectly  their  individual  existence, 
properties,  and  relations.  Now  is  it  possible,  that 
any  purpose  or  conduct  of  God  should  refer  to  a  com- 
munity, or  society  of  men  without  referring  to  the  indi- 
viduals of  whom  that  society  is  composed  ?  Is  it  possi- 
ble, for  example,  that  a  community  should  be  visited 
with  sickness  or  famine,  and  yet  the  individuals,   who 


186 

compose  that  community,  escape  ?  Is  it  possible  that  a 
community  should  receive  any  blessing,  and  yet  the  indi- 
vidual members  continue  destitute  of  it  ?  Is  it  possible 
that  any  law  should  be  obligatory  upon  a  public  body  of 
men,  which  yet  is  not  obligatory  upon  the  individuals 
composing  that  body  ?  Is  it  possible  that  we  should  love 
a  society,  or  that  we  should  promote  the  welfare  of  a  so- 
ciety, without  loving  its  members,  and  promoting  their 
welfare  ?  How  then  could  Dr.  Ware  think  it  proper 
to  assert,  that  the  purpose  of  God  mentioned  in  the  pas- 
sage under  consideration,  relates  not  to  individuals,  but 
to  the  Christian  community  ? 

Nor  can  it  be  of  any  use  to  Dr.  Ware's  argument, 
for  him  to  say,  that  this  divine  purpose  does  not  relate 
"  to  individuals,  as  such  ;"  that  is,  to  individuals,  as  indi- 
viduals, or  in  their  individual  capacity.  Suppose  we 
admit  this.  What  then  ?  The  divine  purpose  does 
not  refer  to  them  in  their  individual  capacity;  still  it 
must  refer  to  them,  as  members  of  the  body,  or  in  their 
collective  capacity.  Now  do  men  cease  to  be  men,  by 
being  collected  together  in  society  ?  Do  they  lose  any 
of  their  intellectual  or  moral  powers  ?  Does  their  ex- 
istence or  their  happiness  become  less  important?  Do 
they  not  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  God  ?  Have 
they  not  as  good  a  title  to  a  just  and  proper  treatment 
from  God  in  their  collective,  as  in  their  individual  capac- 
ity ?  If  any  purpose  or  act  of  God,  which  relates  to 
men  as  individuals,  is  liable  to  a  charge  of  injustice  or 
partiality  ;  certainly  it  is  not  less  liable,  if  it  relates  to 
them  as  collected  together  in  society;  since  after  being 
thus  collected,  they  retain  all  their  relations  to  God, 
and  have  an  undiminished  right  to  expect  from  him  all 
that  is  just  and  equal. 

That  the  purpose  of  God  referred  to,  could  not  af- 


187 

feet  men  as  members  of  a  community,  without  affecting 
them  as  individuals,  will  appear  very  evident,  if  we  con- 
sider the  nature  of  that  divine  purpose,  and  to  what  kind 
of  blessings  it  related.  The  Apostle  here  speaks  of 
Christians  being  chosen  in  Christ,  that  they  should  be  holy, 
— predestinated  to  the  adoption  of  children, — having  re- 
demption through  Chrisfs  blood,  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
and  having  obtained  an  inheritance.  This  is  the  nature  of 
the  divine  purpose  or  choice.  These  are  the  blessings  to 
which  it  related.  Now  of  which  of  these  blessings  can 
it  be  said,  that  it  respects  Christians  not  as  individuals, 
but  as  a  community^  Is  not  a  man  holy  in  his  individual 
capacity  ?  Is  he  not  adopted  to  be  a  child  of  God,  as  an 
individual?  Do  not  a  man's  sins  belong  to  him  as  an  in- 
dividual ;  and  must  not  forgiveness  respect  him  as  an  indi- 
vidual ?  And  is  it  not  as  an  individual,  that  a  man  is  re- 
deemed, and  made  an  heir  of  heaven  9  There  is  no  bless- 
ing here  spoken  of,  which  is  of  such  a  nature,  that  it 
can  relate  to  men  in  any  other  capacity,  than  as  individ- 
ual moral  agents. 

But  Dr.  Ware  says,  the  passage  now  before  us,  re- 
fers "  not  to  final  salvation,  but  to  Christian  privileges." 
It  is  indeed  true  that  being  made  "  holy,"  "  forgiveness," 
and  -'redemption  through  the  blood  of  Christ,"  are 
Christian  privileges.  But  they  are  privileges  connected 
with  "final  salvation,"  and  evidentlv  involving:  it.  And 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  the  Apostle  express- 
ly mentions  salvation,  as  the  blessing  secured  by  the  di- 
vine purpose, — a  salvation  attained  through  sanctifica- 
tion  of  the  spirit.  "God  hath  from  the  beginning  chos- 
en you  to  salvation,  through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit 
and  belief  of  the  truth."  Does  not  this  refer  to  final 
salvation  ?     And  does  not  the  predestination  spoken  of, 


188 

Rom.  viii.  29,  30,  refer  to  final  salvation?  Let  the  read- 
er examine  for  himself. 

But  we  must  attend  to  the  arguments,  by  which  Dr. 
Ware  proves,  that  the  passage  under  consideration  re- 
fers not  to  final  salvation,  but  to  Christian  privileges. 
His  first  argument  is,  "  that  the  Epistle  is  addressed  to 
the  whole  Christian  community  at  Ephesus,  without 
any  intimation  that  any  expressions  in  it  are  applicable 
to  some,  and  not  to  others."  And  where  would  have 
been  the  propriety  of  intimating  that  any  of  the  expres- 
sions were  applicable  to  some  and  not  to  others,  when 
the  whole  community  was  made  up  of  those,  who  had 
openly  renounced  their  sins,  and,  in  the  face  of  persecu- 
tion and  death,  boldly  professed  their  faith  in  Christ.  A 
Christian  community  then  was  not  what  we  generally 
call  so  now.  The  population  of  Ephesus,  before  the  in- 
troduction of  Christianity,  were  "  without  God  in  the 
worlds-atheists.  It  was  among  such  a  people,  that  Paul 
gathered  a  Church,  that  is,  a  society  of  those  whom  God 
had  "quickened,"  and  "  made  nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ," 
and  "  sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise  ;"  whom,  in 
short,  he  had  made  entirely  different  from  what  they 
were  by  nature.  The  rest  of  the  Ephesians  remained 
as  they  were,  "  enemies  to  God  by  wicked  works."  Ac- 
cordingly, the  Christian  community  among  the  Ephe- 
sians comprised  those  who  were  apparently  quickened, 
saved  by  grace,  holy.  But  what  is  called  a  christian  com- 
munity among  us,  comprises  all,  both  saints  and  sinners, 
who  live  together  in  any  place  or  country,  where  the 
Christian  religion  has  been  established.  If  any  man 
should  proceed  in  his  reasoning,  on  the  supposition  that 
a  church,  or  Christian  community  among  the  Ephesians 
was  the  same,  as  what  we  call  a  Christian  community 
here  ;  he  would  betray  great  want  of  attention  to  facts, 


189 

and  would  disregard  one  of  the  most  important  helps 
to  a  right  understanding  of  the  Scriptures  ;  namely,  that 
we  carefully  consider  the  circumstances  of  those  who 
wrote  them,  and  of  those  to  whom   they  were   written. 

But  Dr.  Ware  proceeds  in  his  argument  ;  "  That  this 
choice  or  predestination  was  not  that  of  individuals  to 
eternal  life,  but  of  all  who  received  the  Christian  faith, 
to  the  profession  and  privileges  of  the  gospel — appears 
still  farther  from  other  expressions  addressed  in  the 
same  manner.  It  is  for  these  same  persons,  saints,  chos- 
en, &c,  that  the  Apostle  thought  it  needful  very  earn- 
estly to  pray  to  God, '  that  they  might  be  strengthened 
with  might  by  his  spirit, — that  Christ  might  dwell  in 
their  hearts  by  faith  ;  that  they  might  be  rooted  and 
grounded  in  love  ;'  very  suitable  to  be  addressed  to  pro- 
fessed believers  as  a  promiscuous  body  ;  but  such  as  we 
should  hardly  expect,  if  the  persons  designated,  were 
by  the  very  designation  understood  to  be  those  only 
who  were  certainly  chosen  to  eternal  life,  and  were 
already  grounded  in  love,  &c." 

Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  this  reasoning  of 
Dr.  Ware  does  not  answer  his  purpose.  For  every 
Christian  on  earth,  however  advanced  he  may  be  in 
holiness,  and  however  strong  his  hope  of  heaven,  does 
offer  up  just  such  prayer  as  that  above  mentioned,  for 
himself.  And  is  it  not  perfectly  suitable  that  he  should  ? 
And  if  it  is  suitable  that  the  true  Christian  should  pray 
thus  for  himself,  it  must  be  suitable  that  he  should  pray 
thus  for  other  true  Christians.  Although  the  Christian 
has  repented,  and  believed,  and  is  holy  ;  his  repentance, 
faith,  and  holiness  are  but  begun.  He  prays  that  they 
may  be  continued  and  increased,  by  the  constant  influ- 
ence of  divine  grace.  The  prayer  is  perfectly  consist- 
ent with  the  attainments  of  the  best  man  on  earth.  It 
25 


190 

is  plain  then,  that  Dr.  Ware's  attempt  to  prove,  from 
the  nature  of  the  Apostle's  prayer,  that  he  did  not  mean 
to  address  the  saints  at  Ephesus  as  being  true  Christians, 
already  grounded  in  love,  is  entirely  unsuccessful  ;  since 
no  prayer  could  have  been  more  proper,  on  supposition 
of  their  being  true  Christians. 

Dr.  Ware  allows  that  the  prayer,  above  referred  to, 
is  very  suitable  to  be  offered  up  for  "  professed  believ- 
ers as  a  promiscuous  body."  He  doubtless  means  the 
whole  body  of  professing  believers,  including  the  sincere 
as  well  as  the  hypocritical.  Certainly  he  cannot  mean 
that  sincere  Christians  are  to  be  excepted.  But  if  they 
are  not  to  be  excepted,  then  the  prayer  is  suitable  in 
relation  to  them.  Prayer  cannot  be  properly  offered  up 
for  a  promiscuous  body,  unless  those,  who  compose  that 
body,  have  something  in  common,  on  account  of  which 
the  same  prayer  is  suited  to  them  all.  In  the  case  be- 
fore us,  those  for  whom  the  prayer  was  offered,  had 
common  wants.  Whether  they  were  all  sincere  Chris- 
tians or  not,  they  all  needed  what  the  apostle  supplicat- 
ed for  them.  So  that  the  prayer  would  have  been  per- 
fectly proper,  had  they  all  been  truly  sanctified.  And 
none  the  less  proper  surely,  on  supposition  they  were 
"certainly  chosen  to  eternal  life."  Could  such  a  choice 
prevent  their  needing  the  blessings  of  the  gospel  ?  If 
because  men  are  chosen  to  eternal  life,  they  do  not 
need  the  blessings  mentioned  in  the  apostle's  prayer; 
then  they  do  not  need  conversion,  or  faith,  or  any  oth- 
er blessing, — not  even  that  very  eternal  life,  to  which 
they  are  chosen.  What  dream  of  Antinomianism  or 
fatalism  was  ever  so  strange  as  this  ? 

But  Dr.  Ware  says,  the  apostle  "  thinks  it  proper  to 
exhort  these  same  persons  to  walk  worthy  of  their  vo- 
cation, to  put  off  the  old  man,  and  put  on  the  new  man. 


191 

and  not  to  grieve  the  Spirit." — "  Very  suitable  to  be  ad- 
dressed to  the  promiscuous  body  of  professing  Christians  ; 
— very  suitable,  if  by  saints,  chosen,  predestinated,  this 
only  were  meant  ;  but  certainly  not  so,  if  by  these  terms 
were  designated  persons  chosen  from  eternity  to  final 
salvation,  and  already  saints  and  faithful  in  the  highest 
and  literal  sense.  Such,  as  distinguished  from  the  rest 
of  the  world,  are  not  proper  subjects  of  exhortation 
to  walk  worthy  of  the  Christian  vocation." 

But  I  ask  why  they  are  not  proper  subjects  of  such 
exhortation  ?  Is  it  not  the  duty  of  all  men  to  walk  wor- 
thy of  the  Christian  vocation  ?  And  can  it  cease  to  be 
the  duty  of  any,  because  they  are  already  real  saints, 
and  are  chosen  to  salvation  ?  God  has  chosen  them, 
that  they  should  be  holy.  Can  this  release  them  from  the 
obligation  to  be  holy  ?  The  grace  of  God  in  choosing 
men  to  salvation,  and  in  making  them  saints,  is  represent- 
ed by  the  apostles,  as  a  new  motive  to  duty,  not  as  a 
reason  for  neglecting  it.  Now  if  walking  worthy  of 
their  vocation  is  the  duty  of  those  who  are  chosen  to 
salvation  and  are  already  saints;  then  clearly  it  is  prop- 
er that  they  should  be  exhorted  to  walk  thus.  For  to 
what  can  the  Scriptures  more  properly  exhort  men,  than 
to  do  their  duty. 

But  we  may  take  another  view.  If  God  has  deter- 
mined to  bring  men  to  final  salvation,  he  has  de- 
termined to  do  it  by  certain  means.  These  means  are 
repentance,  faith,  and  increasing,  persevering  holi- 
ness. But  these  are  active  duties  of  rational  moral  agents. 
Men  must  perform  them,  as  moral  agents.  And  as  mor- 
al agents  they  must  be  excited  to  perform  them.  But 
how  are  moral  agents  excited  to  perform  duty,  but  by 
exhortations,  commands,  promises,  and  threats  ?  Now 
do  men  cease  to  be  moral  agents,  because  they  are  "  a!- 


192 

ready  saints  in  the  literal  sense  ?"  Dr.  Ware's  reason- 
ing implies  that  they  do.  If  he  would  allow  that  they 
continue  to  be  moral  agents,  he  must  allow  it  to  be  prop- 
er that  they  should  be  treated  as  moral  agents,  and  be 
exhorted  and  commanded  to  do  their  duty. — He  thinks 
"  they  cannot  be  exhorted  to  be  renewed, — because  by 
the  supposition  their  renewal  is  already  certain."  But 
suppose  it  is  certain  that  they  are  renewed,  that  is,  that 
their  renewal  is  begun  ;  is  it  not  necessary  that  it  should 
be  continued  and  increased?  Because  they  have  begun 
to  obey,  is  their  increasing,  persevering  obedience  un- 
necessary ?  But  if  persevering  obedience  is  necessary, 
they  must  be  influenced  to  it,  and  must  be  influenced  by 
motives.  1  spoke  of  active  duties.  To  put  off  the  old 
man,  and  put  on  the  new  man,  to  be  strengthened  by  the 
Spirit  in  the  inner  man,  &c.  is  to  love  God  with  in- 
creasing ardor,  and  obey  with  increasing  constancy  and 
delight.  What  in  the  creation  can  be  more  active  than 
this  ?  But  Christians  cannot  be  active  without  active 
powers  ;  and  they  cannot  exert  their  active  powers  in 
doing  their  duty,  without  motives  ;  and  what  better  mo- 
tives can  be  used  with  them,  than  the  exhortations  and 
warnings  of  Scripture  ? 

Dr.  Ware  says,  renewal,  being  certain,  "is  what 
they  have  no  power  either  to  prevent,  or  to  bring  about." 
But  does  it  follow,  that  because  it  is  certain  a  man  has 
acted  or  will  act  in  a  particular  way,  he  has  no  power 
to  act  thus,  and  no  power  to  act  otherwise  ?  Christ's 
word  rendered  it  very  certain,  that  Peter  would  deny 
him,  and  Judas  betray  him.  But  did  that  certainty  take 
away  their  power  to  do  what  they  did,  or  to  refrain  from 
it  ?  Dr.  Ware  asks,  "  And  with  what  propriety  can 
such,"  that  is,  those  who  are  already  saints,  and  chosen 
to  eternal  life,  "  be  exhorted  not  to  grieve  the    Spirit  of 


193 

God  ?"  I  answer,  with  the  same  propriety  that  they 
can  be  exhorted  to  avoid  any  sin,  or  perform  any  duty. 
1  answer  again,  that  the  Apostle  makes  the  very  consid- 
eration, that  those,  whom  he  addresses,  are  holy,  and 
that  they  are  the  objects  of  God's  special  favour,  a  mo- 
tive to  enforce  such  exhortations.  He  tells  them  they  are 
the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  that  they  are  the  mem- 
bers of  Christ,  and  are  not  their  own  ;  and  makes  use  of 
this  as  a  reason  for  glorifying  God  by  a  pure  and  holy 
life.  See  1  Cor.  vi.  15—20.  2  Cor.  vi,  16,  17.  So  in  a 
multitude  of  places,  the  very  consideration,  that  men  are 
Christians  indeed,  and  that  God  has  conferred  so  great  a 
blessing  upon  them  as  to  make  them  heirs  of  heaven, 
is  urged  as  a  powerful  motive  to  gratitude  and  obedi- 
ence. And  a  powerful  motive  it  must  surely  be,  if  our 
being  real  Christians,  and  heirs  of  an  eternal  inheritance, 
is  to  be  regarded  as  a  divine  favour. 

The  farther  I  proceed,  the  more  am  I  satisfied  of  the 
total  mistake  of  Dr.  Ware  in  supposing  that  the  divine 
purpose,  which  makes  any  future  character  or  action  of 
men  certain,  is  inconsistent  with  their  moral  agency,  or 
with  the  proper  influence  of  motives.  This  supposition, 
which  mixes  itself  more  or  less  with  the  reasoning  of  all 
who  oppose  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  purposes,  may  be 
proved,  and  has  been  proved,  both  false  and  absurd,  by 
arguments  which  I  think  no  man  is  able  to  invalidate. 

Reasoning  from  Rom.  ix. 

Dr.  Ware  thinks  that  a  similar  method  of  investiga^- 
tion  to  that  which  was  applied  to  the  passage  in  Ephe- 
sians,  will  convince  his  readers,  "  that  this  passage  has 
no  relation  to  an  Election  to  eternal  life."  The  candid 
reader  must  decide  whether  his  method  of  investigation 
serves  his  purpose,  in  respect  either  to  that  passage  or 


194 

this.  In  relation  to  Rom.  ix,  I  have  scarcely  any 
thing  to  add  to  my  reasoning  in  my  Letters,  which,  in  its 
main  points,  Dr.  Ware  has  not  even  attempted  to  con- 
fute. Most  of  what  he  says  about  the  general  scope 
of  the  first  part  of  the  Epistle  is  doubtless  correct. 
What  then?  Does  that  disprove  the  doctrine  of 
Election  ?  No  more  than  it  disproves  any  thing  else. 
As  to  national  distinctions,  and  religious  privileges,  I 
have  already  expressed  my  views.  If  Unitarians  will 
consider  the  real  influence  of  religious  privileges,  and 
the  momentous  consequences  of  the  distinction  which 
God  has  made  respecting  them,  upon  the  character 
and  future  condition  of  men ;  they  may  find  as  great  diffi- 
culty in  what  Dr.  Ware  has  said  respecting  Jacob 
and  Esau,  p.  76,  77,  as  in  the  Orthodox  doctrine. 

Dr.  Ware  admits  what  I  advanced  in  my  Letters,  that 
the  reflection  of  the  Apostle,  on  the  case  of  Jacob  and 
Esau,  v.  16,  implies  a  general  principle  of  the  divine 
government,  but  thinks  it  must  be  confined  to  cases 
similar  to  that  of  Jacob  and  Esau,  and  that  it  cannot 
relate  to  final  salvation.  But  it  peems  clear  to  me,  that 
the  whole  reasoning  of  the  Apostle  makes  it  relate  to 
final  salvation,  and  that,  without  such  a  relation,  his 
reasoning  is  weakness  itself.  For  he  shows,  as  Dr.  Ware 
remarks,  that  those  distinctions  on  which  the  Jews  valu- 
ed themselves,  were  done  away.  If  the  particular  distinc- 
tion he  speaks  of  had  been  of  the  same  nature  with  these, 
he  would  have  said  at  once,  it  is  ended.  But  he  shows 
that  a  real  distinction  is  still  made  among  men,  and  justi- 
fies God  in  making  it.  What  was  that  distinction  ?  Not  a 
national  one — not  one  in  regard  to  religious  privileges  ;  for 
that  we  are  informed,  was  done  away.  It  must  have  been 
a  distinction,  then  really  existing, — a  distinction,  with  which 
the  Jews  would  find  fault ',  but   which  Paul  would  justify. 


195 

It  must  have  been,  a  distinction,  which  would  answer  the 
account  the  Apostle  gave  of  it,  a  distinction  between  the 
children  of  the  flesh  and  the  children  of  God  ;  between 
those  who  were  fitted  to  destruction,  and  those  prepar- 
ed unto  glory.  What  distinction  was  this  ?  I  hope  when 
Dr.  Ware  shall  find  time  to  review  his  remarks  on  this 
subject,  he  will  keep  in  mind,  that  the  Apostle  spoke  of 
a  distinction  then  really  existing,  a  distinction  offensive 
to  the  Jews,  but  which  he  meant  to  justify.  He  first 
brings  the  distinction  into  view,  v.  6.  "  They  are  not  all 
Israel  who  are  of  Israel."  This  distinction  between  true 
saints,  and  those  who  had  merely  the  name  and  external 
privileges  of  saints,  he  illustrates  and  justifies  by  the 
distinction  once  made  between  Isaac  and  Ishmael,  and 
between  Jacob  and  Esau;  and  then  by  what  God  said 
to  Moses,  asserting  his  sovereign  right  to  have  mercy  on 
whom  he  will,  in  another  case  ;  v.  15,  referring  to  Exod. 
xxxiii.  19  ;  and  again  by  what  he  said  of  Pharaoh, 
affirming  that  he  raised  him  up  for  the  purposes  of  his 
glory,  as  Dr.  Ware  sets  forth,  p.  78. — Now  mark  well, 
it  is  immediately  upon  this,  the  Apostle  affirms,  that  God 
exercised  the  right  of  hardening  whom  he  would,  and  this 
in  opposition  to  showing  them  mercy.  This  he  repre- 
sented as  a  distinction  then  actually  made,  and  against 
which  he  knew  the  Jews  would  raise  such  objections  as 
he  mentions,  v.  19,  though  they  would  be  far  enough 
from  raising  them  against  that  external,  national  distinc- 
tion, which  they  had  always  gloried  in,  but  which  vvas 
then  done  away.  This  was  the  very  distinction,  which 
the  Apostle  defends  in  the  following  verses,  where  he 
speaks  of  God's  making  of  the  same  lump,  some  vessels  to 
honour,  and  others  to  dishonour,  and  where,  with  his  eye 
upon  the  same  subject,  he  speaks  of  vessels  of  merot 
prepared  unto  glory,  and  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  to  destfuction. 


196 

And  let  me  say,  finally  ;  it  was  to  this  distinction,  then 
actually  existing, — then  objected  to  by  the  pride  of  Jews,  but 
defended  by  the  Apostle, — it  was  to  this  distinction,  the 
Apostle  applied  that  general  principle  of  the  divine 
administration  which  he  vindicated,  by  referring  to  dis- 
tinctions of  another  character,  formerly  made. 

With  these  remarks,  I  leave  this  interesting  passage 
to  the  consideration  of  the  attentive  reader,  especially 
the  discerning  biblical  critic. 

As  to  the  difference,  which  Dr.  Ware  mentions, 
between  my  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  Reprobation, 
and  the  statement  generally  made  by  the  Orthodox,  I 
have  but  a  word  to  say.  I  did  not  mean  to  state  it  in 
the  same  terms.  But  to  what  does  the  difference  amount? 
I  represented  the  decree  of  Reprobation  to  be,  "  the 
determination  of  God  to  punish  the  disobedientybr  their 
sins,  and  according  to  their  deserts."  The  Assembly  of 
Divines  say,  in  regard  to  the  non-elect,  "God  was  pleased, 
according  to  the  unsearchable  counsel  of  his  own  will,  &c. 
to  pass  by  them,  and  to  ordain  them  to  dishonour  and 
wrathjfor  their  sin,  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  justice." 
If  it  is  to  the  praise  of  his  justice,  it  must  be,  as  I  stated, 
not  only  for  their  sin,  but  according  to  it.  Now,  in  real- 
ity, what  difference  is  there  between  God's  determining 
to  punish  the  finally  disobedient  for  their  sins,  and  his 
passing  by  the  same  persons,  and  ordaining  them  to 
dishonour  and  wrath  for  their  sins  ? 

The  last  paragraph  of  Letter  iv,  displays  a  frankness 
and  kindness  of  heart,  which  I  love  to  acknowledge  and 
to  honour  in  my  opponent,  and  which  I  will  ever  strive 
to  copy  ;  though  in  this  case,  their  exercise  is  attended 
with  misapprehension.  Dr.  Ware  seems  to  suppose  that 
I  shrink  from  the  doctrine  of  Reprobation,  because  I 
find  it  cannot  be  defended  consistently  with  the  moral 


197 

character  of  God,  or  that  I  think  it  desirable  to  keep 
out  of  view  the  most  offensive  feature  of  Calvinism.  But 
this  is  not  exactly  the  case.  I  do  indeed  think  the  doc- 
trine has  often  been  stated  injudiciously  and  harshly,  and 
that  it  is  very  liable  to  be  understood  in  a  manner,  which 
really  makes  it  inconsistent  with  the  character  of  God. 
And  this  is  the  reason  why  I  deem  it  necessary  to  state 
it  with  peculiar  caution.  A  subject  may  be  put  into 
such  a  posture  in  the  minds  of  those  whom  we  address, 
that  whatever  we  say  concerning  it,  will  be  in  danger  of 
being  perverted,  or  misapplied.  When  we  are  apprised 
that  this  is  the  case,  we  ought  certainly  to  be  very  guard- 
ed in  our  language,  and  to  take  special  care  to  bring  into 
view  those  parts  of  the  subject,  which  are  apt  to  be 
overlooked.  This  is  what  I  have  attempted  to  do.  My 
object  is  not  to  conceal  the  truth,  but  to  make  an  exhibi- 
tion of  it,  which  shall  be  just  and  scriptural,  and  which, 
at  the  same  time,  shall,  if  possible,  be  so  well  guarded, 
that  men  can  find  nothing  in  it  to  oppose,  except  the 
truth  itself. 

I  am  happy  that  Dr.  Ware  exhibits  none  of  the  vio- 
lence, bitterness,  or  scurrility,  with  which  many  oppose 
this  doctrine  :  though  he  is  not  wanting;  in  zeal.  But 
when  I  soberly  consider  the  real  nature  of  the  doctrine 
against  which  he  and  others  make  such  strenuous  oppo- 
sition, I  hardly  know  what  to  sav.  It  would  seem  as 
though  creatures  of  yesterday,  as  we  arc,  instead  of 
wishing  to  limit  the  extent  of  Jehovah's  dominion,  would 
rejoice  in  the  highest  degree  of  sovereignty  which  he 
can  exercise.  'Tis  true,  there  are  reasons  enough  against 
our  committing  our  eternal  or  even  our  temporal  inter- 
ests absolutely  to  the  will  of  man.  But  is  not  the  infi- 
nite perfection  of  God  sufficient  to  secure  our  implicit 
and  unlimited  confidence  in  his   administration  ?    And  if 

26 


198 

he  tells  us  in  his  word,  that  he  hath  mercy  on  whom  he  will 
have  mercy  ;  that  is,  exercises  a  sovereign  control  over 
our  character  and  destiny;  why  should  we  not  say,  Amen, 
fully  persuaded  that  a  Being  of  infinite  wisdom  and  good- 
ness will,  in  all  respects,  do  right?  Why  should  we  not 
cheerfully  say,  the  Lord  reigneth,  and  doeth  all  things  af- 
ter the  counsel  of  his  own  will?  since  the  more  extensive 
his  dominion,  the  safer  are  the  interests  of  the  universe. 


CHAPTER  X. 


ATONEMENT. 


All  that  I  can  do  on  this  subject  is  to  give  a  state- 
ment of  Dr.  Ware's  scheme,  and  make  a  few  general 
remarks  upon  it. 

Doctrine  of  redemption,  as  held  by  Dr.  Ware. 

"  Christ  was  our  Redeemer  by  those  miracles,  which 
proved  him  to  be  a  messenger  and  teacher  from  God  ; 
by  those  instructions  and  that  example,  which  were  to 
remove  our  ignorance,  and  deliver  us  from  the  slavery 
of  sin  ;  by  those  high  motives  to  repentance  and  holiness, 
which  are  found  in  the  revelation  of  a  future  life  and 
righteous  retribution,  and  the  persuasive  efficacy  given 
to  his  example  by  his  sufferings,  &c."  p.  92.  "  Christ's 
sufferings  are  the  means  of  delivering  us  from  punishment, 
only  as  they  are  instrumental  in  delivering  us  from  the 
dominion  of  sin.  They  are  the  grounds  of  our  forgive- 
ness, only  as  they  are  the  means  of  bringing  us  to  repen- 


199 

iance,  only  as  they  operate  to  bring  us  to  that  state  ot 
holiness,  which  has  the  promise  of  forgiveness,  and  qual- 
ifies us  for  it,  p.  93. — "  Christ's  being  made  a  curse  for 
us  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  by  its  influ- 
ence in  bringing  us  back  to  repentance."  p.  97. 

The  same  views  are  expressed  in  a  sermon  of  Dr. 
Ware,  and  still  more  largely  in  Dr.  John  Taylor's  trea- 
tise on  the  atonement. 

Although  this  notion  of  atonement,  redemption,  &c. 
is  affirmed  with  as  much  confidence  as  it  could  be,  if  it 
were  supported  by  the  strongest  evidence,  and  were 
perfectly  free  from  difficulty  ;  I  must  be  allowed  to  pause 
a  while  before  receiving  it,  and  to  state  briefly  some  of 
the  objections  which  seem  to  lie  against  it. 

First,  Dr.  Ware's  scheme  assumes,  that  there  is  nothing 
to  hinder  the  forgiveness  of  sinners,  but  their  continuance  in 
sin  ;  that  it  is  an  established  principle  of  God's  moral 
government,  that  repentance  shall  put  an  end  to  the 
consequences  of  sin. 

Now  I  ask,  in  the  first  place,  whether  the  divine  law 
supports  such  a  principle.  The  law  promises  a  reward 
for  obedience,  and  threatens  a  penalty  for  disobedience. 
But  where  does  it  give  us  the  least  hint,  that  repentance 
will  set  aside  the  penalty? — Should  we  expect  this,  from 
considering  the  nature  of  the  case?  Suppose  transgressors 
repent.  Does  that  alter  the  guilt  of  their  past  transgres- 
sion ?  Does  God  therefore  cease  to  look  upon  past  trans- 
gression with  displeasure  ?  "  We  may  as  well  affirm," 
says  a  learned  Divine,  "  that  our  former  obedience  atones 
for  our  present  sins,  as  that  our  present  obedience  makes 
amends  for  antecedent  transgressions."  But  if  the  guilt  of 
past  transgression  remains  the  same  as  before,  and  God 
looks  upon  it  with  the  same  displeasure  ;  how  will  he  do 
justice  to  his  own  character,  or  to  the  principles  of  his 


200 

moral  government,  if  in  his  conduct  he  shows  no  displeas- 
ure ?  How  is  it  with  a  civil  government  ?  Does  it  hold 
out  to  criminals  the  prospect  of  pardon,  in  case  they 
repent?  What  would  be  the  consequence,  if  it  should? 
But  the  consequence  of  such  a  principle  in  the  divine 
government  would  be  as  much  more  dreadful,  as  the 
interests  of  the  divine  government  are  more  important, 
and  require  to  be  more  watchfully  guarded,  than  those 
of  any  human  government. 

We  may  learn  something  on  this  subject  from  the 
analogy  of  God's  government  in  the  present  world.  "  In 
the  common  occurrences  of  life,  the  man  who,  by  the 
practice  of  vice,  has  injured  his  character,  his  fortune, 
and  his  health,  does  not  find  himself  instantly  restored 
to  the  full  enjoyment  of  these  blessings  on  repenting  of 
his  past  misconduct.  Now  if  the  attributes  of  the  Deity 
demand,  that  the  punishment  should  not  outlive  the 
crime,  on  what  ground  shall  we  justify  this  temporal 
dispensation  ?  The  difference  in  degree,  cannot  affect  the 
question  in  the  least.  It  matters  not,  whether  the  pun- 
ishment be  of  long  or  short  duration;  whether  in  this 
world  or  in  the  next.  If  the  justice  or  the  goodness  of 
God,  require  that  punishment  should  not  be  inflicted, 
when  repentance  has  taken  place  ;  it  must  be  a  violation 
of  those  attributes  to  permit  any  punishment  whatever, 
the  most  slight,  or  the  most  transient.  Nor  will  it  avail 
to  say,  that  the  evils  of  this  life  attendant  upon  vice,  are 
the  effects  of  an  established  constitution,  and  follow  in 
the  way  of  natural  consequence.  Is  not  that  established 
constitution  itself  the  effect  of  the  divine  decree  ?  And 
are  not  its  several  operations  as  much  the  appointment 
of  its  Almighty  framer,  as  if  they  had  individually  flowed 
from  his  immediate  direction  ?  But  besides,  what  reason 
have  we  to  suppose  that  God's  treatment  of  us  in  a  fu- 


201 

ture  state,  will  not  be  of  the  same  nature  as  we  find 
it  in  this  ;  according  to  established  rules,  and  in  the 
way  of  natural  consequence  ?"*  Is  it  then  consistent 
with  reason  and  propriety  to  assume,  without  proof, 
that  nothing  could  ever  hinder  the  forgiveness  of  sin, 
but  impenitence  ?  Were  there  no  appearances  di- 
rectly against  this  assumption,  I  should  think  it  alto- 
gether unsafe  to  adopt  it,  without  positive  evidence  in 
its  favour.  For  even  if  civil  government  could  always 
grant  forgiveness  to  offenders  on  their  repentance  ;  and 
if  under  the  divine  administration  in  the  present  life 
repentance  should  be  found  to  put  an  immediate  end  to 
the  visible  consequences  of  particular  sins  ;  how  could 
we  certainly  conclude  that  the  Governor  of  the  world 
will  not  judge  it  best  to  guard  the  everlasting  inter- 
ests of  his  kingdom  by  higher  sanctions  ?  How  could 
we  certainly  conclude,  that  rebels  would  find  no  oth- 
er obstacles,  besides  their  impenitence,  in  the  way  of 
filial  impunity  ?  I  should  certainly  charge  myself  with 
inexcusable  temerity,  if,  without  the  best  evidence,  I 
should  venture  to  decide  on  a  subject  so  vast  and  incom- 
prehensible. And  further;  if  we  would  be  secure 
against  a  wrong  judgment  in  this  case,  we  must  not  for- 
get, that  we  ourselves  are  transgressors,  and  as  such,  are 
extremely  liable  to  be  blinded  by  self-interest,  and  to 
adopt  any  opinion  favourable  to  our  wishes,  though  ever 
so  destitute  of  evidence. 

I  have  not  intended  by  any  thing  which  has  now 
been  advanced,  to  admit,  that  repentance  could  ever 
have  actually  taken  place  under  the  moral  government 
of  God,  if  no  atonement  had  been  made.  Indeed  there 
is  no  more  reason  to  think  that  any  instance  of  repen- 
tance would  have  been  found  among  apostate  men,  than 
*  Magee. 


202 

among  the  apostate  angels,  had  not  salvation  been  pro- 
vided through  an  atonement.  The  supposition  of  re- 
pentance, without  regard  to  an  atonement,  has  been 
intended  merely  to  assist  in  the  investigation  of  prin- 
ciples. 

Second  objection.  Dr.  Ware's  scheme  assumes,  that 
the  words  redemption,  sacrifice,  fyc.  have  the  same  significa- 
tion when  applied  to  the  work  of  Christ,  as  they  have  in  the 
few  passages  he  has  selected,  where  they  relate  to  other  sub- 
jects, and  are  obviously  used  in  a  very  different  sense.  Dr. 
Ware  finds  a  few  places,  where  redemption  denotes  mere 
deliverance  from  temporal  judgments,  without  any  price 
being  paid.  And  these  examples  of  the  use  of  the  term, 
he  says,  "may  lead  us  to  some  just  notions  of  its  meaning, 
when  it  is  said,  we  have  redemption  by  the  blood  of 
of  Christ." — "  He  redeemed  us  by  his  blood,  as  the 
children  of  Israel  were  redeemed  by  the  mighty  power 
of  God."  See  pp.  90,  91,  92.  Now  is  it  consistent  with 
sound  principles  of  interpretation,  to  take  it  for  granted, 
that  because  the  word  redeem  is  sometimes  used  in  this 
secondary  and  imperfect  sense,  in  relation  to  the  deliv- 
erance of  men  from  temporal  evils,  it  is  used  in  the  same 
sense  in  regard  to  the  eternal  salvation  of  sinners?  Is 
this  to  be  taken  for  granted,  when  the  Bible  itself  makes 
a  most  obvious  and  important  difference,  representing 
the  deliverence  of  men  from  temporal  bondage  to  be 
effected  by  the  mere  exercise  of  God's  power,  but  rep- 
resenting expressly,  and  in  various  forms,  that  redemp- 
tion from  eternal  destruction  by  divine  power  is  through 
the  blood  of  Christ,  through  the  death  of  a  Mediator,  and 
ascribing  the  whole  of  salvation  to  this,  as  the  great 
means  of  procuring  it  ?  How  can  we  reason  from  one 
case  to  the  other,  when  the  Scripture  represents  them 
as  so  widely  different  ? 


203 

I  have  the  same  general  remarks  as  to  sacrifice.  I 
admit  the  word  is  sometimes  used  in  a  very  imperfect 
sense,  denoting  a  mere  offering  to  God  of  prayer,  praise, 
or  obedience,  or  a  mere  act  of  kindness.  But  upon 
what  principle  can  Dr.  Ware  draw  from  this  unusual  and 
imperfect  sense  of  the  word,  the  broad  conclusion,  that  it 
is  in  a  similar  sense,  *  that  sacrifice  is  applied  to  what- 
ever was  done  by  Jesus  Christ  for  our  benefit  ?"  Be- 
cause such  is  the  meaning  sometimes,  does  it  follow  that 
it  is  so  here?  This,  then,  1  state  as  a  serious  objection 
against  the  scheme  of  my  opponent;  that  it  overlooks 
entirely  the  proper  method  of  determining  the  meaning 
of  the  words  redemption,  sacrifice,  &c,  as  they  are  appli- 
ed to  the  work  of  Christ,  and  rests  on  the  assumption, 
that  their  meaning  here  is  similar  to  what  it  is,  not  gen- 
erally in  the  Scriptures,  but  in  a  few  texts,  where  the 
words  have  a  very  unusual  and  imperfect  sense. 

My  third  objection  to  the  scheme  is,  that  it  denies 
the  obvious  sense  of  many  passages  of  Scripture  which  re- 
late to  the  subject,  and  gives  them  a  meaning,  in  a  high  de- 
gree unnatural  and  forced.  Without  supposing  that  Uni- 
tarians have  a  preconceived  opinion  which  they  wish  to 
support,  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  account  for  it,  that 
they  should  interpret  the  word  of  God  as  they  do.  The 
passages  which  assert  a  real  atonement  are  too  many  to 
be  repeated  here.  The  Scriptures  declare  that  Christ 
is  "  the  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the 
world  ;  that  he  hath  given  himself  for  us  an  offering 
and  sacrifice  to  God;  that  he  is  the  propitiation  for  our 
sins  ;  that  he  died  for  us  ;  that  he  redeemed  us  from  the 
curse,  being  made  a  curse  for  us  ;  that  we  are  forgiven 
through  his  blood,  &c."  If  such  declarations  as  these 
do  not  teach  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  as  it  is  com- 
monly held,  nothing  can.      These    texts  assert  it   in  Ian- 


204 

guage  as  plain,  express,  and  emphatic,  as  any  which  can 
be  imagined.  To  say,  they  do  not  teach  the  doctrine, 
seems  to  me  about  the  same  as  saying,  the  inspired  wri- 
ters could  not  teach  it,  if  they  would.  But  this  scheme 
not  only  denies  the  plain  meaning  of  Scripture,  but 
gives  it  a  meaning  exceedingly  unnatural  and  forced. 
When  the  Scripture  declares  that  we  have  "redemp- 
tion through  Christ's  blood,  even  the  forgiveness  of 
sins;"  Unitarians  make  it  mean,  that  his  blood  pro- 
motes our  repentance.  When  the  Scripture  declares 
that  Christ  died  for  us,  and  is  the  propitiation  for  our 
sins  ;  Unitarians  make  it  mean  merely  that  his  suffer- 
ings confirmed  his  doctrines,  and  are  instrumental  in  de- 
livering us  from  the  dominion  of  sin.  When  the  Scrip- 
ture declares,  that  Christ  became  a  curse  for  us  to  re- 
deem us  from  the  curse  of  the  law  ;  Unitarians  will 
have  it,  that  this  is  only  asserting  its  influence  to  bring 
us  back  to  repentance.  Now  let  men  of  sober  sense 
collect  the  passages  of  Scripture  which  relate  to  the 
work  of  redemption  by  Christ,  and  set  them  down  on 
one  side  ;  and  the  passages  from  Dr.  Ware's  Letters, 
which  exhibit  the  Unitarian  doctrine,  and  set  them 
down  on  the  other  side  •  and  then  compare  them,  and 
see  if  they  are  of  like  signification.  Let  men  of  patient 
research  and  critical  acumen  do  this,  and  see  if  there  is 
any  likeness  between  them. 

Myfow'th  objection  is,  that  this  scheme  takes  away 
the  difference  which  the  Scripture  uniformly  makes  between 
the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  of  his  apostles.  If  the  suf- 
ferings and  death  of  Christ  are  really  nothing  more  than 
Dr.  Ware  makes  them;  thev  are  in  no  sense  distinguish- 
able  from  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Paul.  Who  can 
say,  that  Paul  did  not  give  as  much  and  as  valuable  in- 
struction, as  Jesus  did?  or  that  he  did  not  as  really  con- 


205 

iirm  his  doctrines  by  his  miracles,  his  sufferings  and 
death?  Dr.  Ware  says,  "Christ  was  our  redeemer  by 
those  miracles  which  proved  him  to  be  a  messenger  and 
teacher  from  God  ;  by  those  instructions  and  that  exam- 
ple which  were  to  remove  our  ignorance,  and  deliver  us 
from  the  slavery  of  sin  ;  by  those  high  motives  to  re- 
pentance and  holiness,  which  are  found  in  the  revelation 
of  a  future  life  and  righteous  retribution  ;  and  especially 
hy  the  confirmation  his  doctrines  and  promises  received, 
and  the  persuasive  efficacy  given  to  his  example  by  his 
sufferings,  his  voluntary  death,  and  his  resurrection." 
Now  in  all  these  ways,  except  resurrection,  Paul  was  as 
really  a  redeemer,  as  Jesus  Christ.  Why  then  is  it  not 
proper  to  speak  of  the  redemption  that  is  in  Paul,  to 
celebrate  the  efficacy  of  his  death,  and  to  ascribe  to  it 
the  forgiveness  of  sin  ?  There  is  in  fact,  according  to 
the  statement  of  Dr.  Ware's  opinion  just  quoted,  not  a 
single  point  of  dissimilitude  between  the  work  of  Christ 
as  redeemer,  and  the  work  of  Paul,  excepting  the  resur- 
rection. And  if  Dr.  Ware's  opinion  is  true,  I  am  unable 
to  see  why  it  would  not  be  as  proper  to  say  of  Paul,  as 
of  Christ ;  "  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world  ; — he  is  the  propitiation  for 
our  sins  ; — we  have  redemption  through  his  blood."  But 
the  Bible  does  not  speak  thus  of  Paul.  And  why  does 
it  not  ?  Can  any  answer  be  found,  but  in  the  peculiari- 
ties of  the  Orthodox  doctrine  ? 

This  general  argument  acquires  great  weight,  when 
we  attend  particularly  to  the  manner  in  which  the  Scrip- 
ture speaks  of  Christ,  compared  with  the  manner  in 
which  it  speaks  of  prophets  and  apostles.  Here  we 
have  a  test  of  truth — a  test  of  special  importance,  and 
lr^s  liable  to  be  misapplied,  than  perhaps  any  other. 
Suppose  I  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  those  passages. 

27 


206 

which  assert  in  direct  terms,  that  Christ  offered  himself 
a  sacrifice  for  sin  ;  that  he  died  for  us,  redeemed  us  by 
his  blood,  &c.  I  go  then  to  other  passages  of  the  in- 
spired writers,  particularly  those,  in  which  they  freely 
express  their  feelings  with  respect  to  Christ,  their  grat- 
itude for  his  kindness,  their  estimation  of  the  work  he 
performed,  their  reliance  on  his  death,  and  their  ascrip- 
tions of  glory  to  him  as  a  Redeemer.  From  such  pas- 
sages I  learn  what  were  the  habitual  feelings  of  the 
writers.  I  then  ask,  whether  this  expression  of  feeling 
on  the  part  of  prophets  and  apostles  agrees  best  with 
the  views  of  the  Orthodox,  or  of  Unitarians,  respecting 
the  other  passages  ?  Does  it  agree  best  with  the  notion, 
that  the  influence  of  Christ's  death  was  like  the  influence 
of  Paul's  death  ?  or  with  the  Orthodox  doctrine,  that 
Christ's  death  was  vicarious,  and  had  an  influence  essen- 
tially different  from  that  of  any  other  ? 

My  fifth  objection,  and  the  last  I  shall  now  state, 
arises  from  a  comparative  view  of  the  moral  influence  pro- 
duced by  the  two  systems.  Dr.  Ware  ascribes  a  certain 
influence  to  the  death  of  Christ.  But  the  death  of 
Christ  as  we  understand  it,  has  that  same  influence,  and 
has  it  in  a  still  higher  degree,  than  according  to  his  scheme  ; 
and  besides  this,  answers  other  important  ends,  to  which, 
according  to  his  scheme,  it  has  no  relation.  Dr.  Ware 
says,  Christ's  sufferings  "  are  instrumental  in  delivering 
us  from  the  dominion  of  sin  ;" — iC  they  are  the  means  of 
bringing  us  to  repentance  ;" — ';  they  operate  to  bring  us 
to  that  state  of  holiness,  which  has  the  promise  of  for- 
giveness, and  qualifies  us  for  it."  My  position  is,  first, 
that  Christ's  sufferings  and  death,  as  the  Orthodox  regard 
them,  have  the  same  influence.  According  to  the  scheme 
of  Unitarians,  Christ's  sufferings  and  death  confirm  his 
doctrines  and  promises,  and  give  a  persuasive  efficacy  to  his 


207 

example.  They  do  the  same  according  to  our  views. 
And  Orthodox  writers  have  described  this  influence 
abundantly,  and  with  great  force. 

But  my  position  goes  farther.  The  sufferings  of 
Christ,  according  to  our  scheme,  have  the  same  moral 
influence  in  afar  higher  degree.  I  mean,  that  the  suffer- 
ings of  Christ,  as  apprehended  by  the  Orthodox,  have  a 
much  more  powerful  influence  to  lead  sinners  to  repen- 
tance, than  as  they  are  apprehended  by  Unitarians.  What 
are  the  motives,  which  lead  sinners  to  repentance  ? 
Certainly  one  of  these  is,  the  evil  of  sin,  and  the 
abhorrence  with  which  God  regards  it.  But  these 
are  made  to  appear  much  greater  according  to  our 
scheme  of  the  atonement,  than  according  to  the  other. 
The  sufferings  of  Christ,  as  we  view  them,  are  a  direct 
and  unequalled  display  of  the  evil  of  sin,  and  the  abhor- 
rence with  which  God  regards  it.  They  are  intended 
primarily  for  this  very  purpose.  And  we  believe  they 
really  answer  this  purpose  in  as  high  a  degree  as  would 
have  been  answered,  by  God's  inflicting  upon  sinners  the 
whole  penalty  of  the  law.  But  as  viewed  by  Unitarians, 
they  are  intended  for  no  such  purpose,  and  answer  no 
such  purpose.  Now  surely  that  scheme  of  the  atone- 
ment which  gives  the  highest  view  of  the  evil  of  sin,  and 
the  displeasure  of  God  against  it,  must  have  the  most 
powerful  tendency  to  lead  men  to  repentance.  This  is 
too  plain  to  need  any  illustration.  I  might  say  the  same 
in  regard  to  the  penalty  of  the  law,  or  the  punishment 
which  sin  deserves,  as  set  forth  by  the  death  of  Christ. 
To  those  who  receive  the  Orthodox  doctrine,  the  death 
of  Christ  shows  the  dreadfulness  of  that  punishment, 
in  the  most  striking  light  possible.  But  to  Unita- 
rians it  does  not  show  it  at  all.  Again  ;  to  those 
who  receive  the  Orthodox  doctrine,  the  death  of  Christ 


208 

exhibits  a  far  higher  degree  of  divine  love  and  mer- 
cy, than  to  Unitarians.  These  acknowledge  indeed,  that 
the  death  of  Christ  showed  divine  love  by  giving 
confirmation  to  his  doctrines,  authority  to  his  precepts, 
and  a  persuasive  influence  to  his  example.  But  accord- 
ing to  our  views  of  the  subject,  the  divine  love  was  much 
more  gloriously  displayed.  For  there  was,  as  we  ap- 
prehend, a  mighty  obstacle  in  the  way  of  forgiveness, 
which  no  penitence,  obedience,  or  suffering  of  sinners 
could  ever  remove.  But  God,  "for  the  great  love  where- 
with he  loved  us,"  removed  that  obstacle  by  providing 
a  vicarious  sacrifice,  or  by  sending  his  son  to  die  for  us. 
At  such  a  vast  expense,  the  love  of  God  purchased  our 
forgiveness.  This  divine  love,  so  often  celebrated  in  the 
Scriptures,  is  a  grand  motive  to  repentance.  While  it 
shows  sinners  their  inexcusable  wickedness,  it  forbids 
their  despair,  encourages  their  hopes  and  their  efforts, 
melts  their  hearts  with  pious  grief,  and  attracts  them  to 
obedience.  In  such  ways  as  these,  which  I  can  only  hint 
at,  it  becomes  perfectly  obvious,  that  our  doctrine  invests 
the  sufferings  of  Christ  with  a  power  to  lead  sinners  to 
repentance,  greatly  superior  to  any  which  can  be  derived 
from  the  doctrine  of  Unitarians.  Thus  the  death  of 
Christ,  according  to  our  doctrine,  has  the  same  kind  of 
moral  influence,  which  it  has  according  to  Dr.  Ware's 
scheme,  and  has  it  in  a  far  superior  degree  ;  besides 
all  the  other  and  higher  ends  which  it  answers,  in  rela- 
tion to  the  perfections  and  government  of  God,  and  the 
interests  of  his  universal  empire.  This  then  is  my  objec- 
tion, that  even  in  regard  to  that  influence,  which  Dr. 
Ware  considers  as  the  only  thing  of  any  consequence  in 
Christ's  Death,  his  scheme  is  much  inferior  to  the  Or- 
thodox. It  takes  away  half  the  power  of  the  cross  to 
bring  men  to  repentance. 


209 

After  this  general  view,  I  shall  think  it  wholly  un- 
necessary to  remark  on  all  the  particular  passages  in 
Dr.  Ware's  fifth  Letter,  which  seem  to  me  erroneous. 
I  shall  merely  glance  at  a  few  of  the  principal. 

I  have  been  not  a  little  surprised  at  Dr.  Ware's  say- 
ing, that  I  have  not  explained  the  figurative  language, 
commonly  used  respecting  the  work  of  Christ.  But  I 
have  been  most  of  all  surprised,  that  he  should  charge 
me  with  mixing  the  literal  with  the  metaphorical  sense, 
especially  in  the  following  case.  He  sn>s,  "  W7hen 
by  a  price  paid  by  some  friend,  a  captive  is  restored  to 
liberty,  or  the  punishment  of  a  criminal  is  remitted; 
there  is  redemption  in  the  original  and  literal  sense  of 
the  word.  In  the  same  manner,  if  Christ  delivers  us 
from  punishment  by  suffering  an  evil,  which  was  equiv- 
alent, so  far  as  the  ends  of  the  divine  government  are 
concerned,  to  the  execution  of  the  curse  of  the  law  upon 
transgressors  ;  that  is  a  literal  redemption,  and  that,  and 
the  other  correspondent  terms,  such  as  bought  and  ran- 
somed, are  applied  in  the  literal  sense"  p.  89.  But  can 
this  be  correct  ?  The  restoration  of  a  captive  by  the 
payment  of  a  pecuniary  price,  is  indeed  redemption  in  the 
literal  sense.  But  the  procuring  of  a  sinner's  spiritual 
deliverance  and  restoration  by  an  expedient  of  a  moral 
nature  is  redemption  in  a  metaphorical  sense.  To  make 
the  sense  of  the  word  metaphorical,  it  is  not  necessary 
surely,  that  the  spiritual  restoration  should  be  procured 
without  any  7neans  whatever,  nor  without  means  which  are 
equivalent,  in  a  moral  view,  to  the  execution  of  the  pen- 
alty of  the  law.  Nor  is  it  necessary  that  the  means  us- 
ed should  have  a  less  intimate  connexion  with  the  spir- 
itual deliverance  procured,  than  the  payment  of  money 
has  with  the  deliverance  of  a  captive  from  temporal 
bondage.     It  is  sufficient  to  make  a  perfect  metaphor,  if 


210 

a  transaction  of  a  moral  nature  is  represented  under  the 
similitude  of  a  pecuniary  or  civil  transaction.  Christ  re- 
deemed sinners,  by  paying  a  price  equivalent,  in  a  moral 
view,  to  their  punishment.  Here  is  no  mixture  of  a  lit- 
eral with  a  metaphorical  sense.  The  redemption  spok- 
en of  is  of  a  moral  nature  ;  and  the  price  paid  is  of  a  mor- 
al nature  ;  and  so  the  words  redemption,  price,  pay,  are 
all  used  in  a  metaphorical  sense.  I  said  in  my  Letters  ; 
"as  the  debtor  is  freed  from  imprisonment  by  the  friend 
who  steps  forward  and  pays  his  debt;  so  are  sinners 
freed  from  punishment  by  the  Saviour,  who  shed  his 
blood  for  them."  On  this  Dr.  Ware  says,  "  the  pay- 
ment is  as  literal  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other."  But 
how  so  ?  The  deliverance  of  sinners  from  punishment 
by  the  death  of  Christ  is  represented  under  the  simili- 
tude of  a  debtor's  deliverance  from  prison  by  the  pay- 
ment of  his  debt.  It  is  this  representation  of  the  moral 
transaction  in  language  derived  from  a  common  transac- 
tion in  civil  life,  which  constitutes  the  metaphor.  Just 
so  the  representation  of  God's  pouring  out  his  Spirit,  or 
raining  down  righteousness,  is  a  metaphor  taken  from 
the  pouring  out  of  rain  upon  the  earth.  The  metaphor 
in  both  cases  is  perfect. — If  in  the  case  above  referred 
to,  Dr.  Ware  had  said,  the  payment  in  one  case  is  an 
important  reality,  as  well  as  to  the  other,  he  would  have 
said  the  exact  truth.  All  the  doctrines  of  religion  are 
often  expressed  in  metaphorical  language.  And  this  lan- 
guage is  so  far  from  rendering  their  meaning  obscure 
and  doubtful,  that  it  gives  them,  and  is  designed  to  give 
them,  greater  clearness  and  force. 

My  respected  opponent  expresses  a  serious  objection 
to  our  using  the  metaphorical  language  which  the  Scrip- 
tures use,  and  other  similar  language,  on  the  subject  of 
redemption,  because  it  has  been  the  occasion  of  mistake. 


211 

But  I  think,  on  further  consideration,  he  must  be  satisfi- 
ed that  his  objection  is  not  valid,  and  that,  with  our  best 
efforts,  it  would  be  extremely  difficult,  if  not  impossible, 
on  such  a  subject,  to  avoid  the  use  of  metaphors.  And 
if  we  should  succeed  in  our  efforts  to  do  this,  it  would 
certainly  have  a  most  unhappy  effect.  The  fact  is,  that 
in  most  cases,  if  we  confine  ourselves  to  language  which 
is  wholly  free  from  a  figurative  sense,  we  cannot  convey 
the  truth,  so  as  either  to  correspond  with  our  own 
feelings,  or  to  make  a  just  impression  on  the  minds 
of  others.  The  importance  and  necessity  of  metaphorical 
language  on  moral  and  religious  subjects,  result  from  the 
very  constitution  of  our  nature.  And  Unitarians  have  no 
more  right  to  expect  that  we  shall  lay  aside  the  use  of 
metaphors  on  the  subject  of  redemption,  than  on  other- 
subjects  in  religion.  It  is  admitted,  that  some  men  will 
misunderstand  the  metaphorical  language  now  under  con- 
sideration. They  will  also  misunderstand  the  metaphors 
by  which  other  divine  truths  are  illustrated.  Even  the 
texts  which  represent  God  as  having  hands  and  eves, 
have  by  some  men  been  understood  literally,  and  are 
often  understood  so  now,  especially  by  children.  But 
shall  we  on  this  account  cease  to  speak  of  the  hand  of 
God,  to  denote  his  active  power,  or  the  eyes  of  God  to 
denote  his  knowledge  ?  And  shall  we  cease  to  pray. 
"  forgive  us  our  debts,"  because  our  sins  are  not 
debts  literally?  Or  when  we  use  such  metaphors  in  re- 
ligious discourse,  or  in  prayer,  must  we  always  stop  to 
explain  them  ? 

Dr.  Ware,  p.  05,  speaks  of  our  "  charging  Unitarians 
with  denying  or  explaining  away  the  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment, for  the  very  reason  that  they  explain  the  languages 
in  question  as  figurative."  But  he  has  quite  mistaken 
our  meaning.     We  do  not  charge  Unitarians  with  error, 


212 

because  they  explain  the  language  as  figurative,  but  be- 
cause they  do  not  give  to  the  figurative  language  its  true 
and  obvious  sense.  Just  so  we  should  do  in  other  like 
cases.  When  the  Scriptures  assert  that  "  the  eyes  of 
God  are  in  every  place,"  we  say  the  language  implies 
that  God  is  omniscient.  But  if,  because  it  is  a  metaphor, 
any  one  should  deny  that  it  denotes  a  knowledge  or  dis- 
cernment in  God,  answering  to  natural  vision  in  us  ;  we 
should  charge  him  with  denying  an  important  truth,  not 
because  he  considered  the  language  metaphorical,  but 
because  he  denied  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  figure.  In 
explaining  those  texts  which  speak  of  our  being  bought 
with  a  price,  we  assert  that  they  denote  something  in  the 
work  of  redemption  by  Christ,  which  really  answers  to 
the  price  which  is  paid  for  the  deliverance  of  a  slave  or 
captive ;  and  we  become  very  confident  in  our  explana- 
tion, when  we  find  that  the  Bible,  in  various  ways,  de- 
scribes to  us  the  very  thing  which  is  called  the  price,  that 
is,  the  death  of  Christ,  and  that  many  texts  both  of  a  fig- 
urative and  literal  sense,  represent  that  death  as  of  the 
utmost  importance  in  the  work  of  redemption,  and  as  the 
means  of  forgiveness  and  salvation  to  sinners.  The 
texts  above  referred  to,  must  denote  something  which 
fairly  answers  to  the  price  paid  for  the  deliverance  of  a 
captive,  and  which  may  justly  be  represented  by  it ; 
that  is,  the  death  of  Christ  must  be  the  consideration 
in  the  moral  government  of  God,  on  account  of  which 
sinners  are  saved  ;  as  in  the  other  case,  the  price  paid 
is  the  consideration,  on  account  of  which  a  captive  is  de- 
livered, not  merely  a  means  of  preparing  him  to  receive 
deliverance, — though  such  preparation  must  be  includ- 
ed, as  a  necessary  circumstance. 

In  my  Letters  I  signified,  what  I  very  honestly  ap- 
prehended to  be  true,  that  the  denial  of  the  doctrine 


213 

of  atonement  is  "  contrary  to  the  humble  spirit  of 
Christian  faith."  Dr.  Ware,  p.  102,  seems  to  think  it 
would  follow  from  this,  that  "  it  is  unsafe  to  allow  our- 
selves to  inquire  about  the  doctrine."  But  how  would 
this  follow  ?  He  would  doubtless  unite  with  us  in  say- 
ing, that  the  denial  of  the  divine  existence  is  contrary 
to  the  humble  spirit  of  Christian  faith,  and  clearly 
shows  the  want  of  moral  virtue.  But  would  this  im- 
ply, that  it  is  unsafe  to  inquire  into  the  subject  of 
the  divine  existence  ?  We  should  certainly  deem  it 
proper  in  such  a  case,  to  persuade  men  to  inquire  with 
the  greatest  diligence  ;  though  we  should  set  it  down  as 
conclusive  evidence  against  them,  if  they  were  not  convinc- 
ed. So  we  consider  it  contrary  to  the  humble  spirit  of 
Christian  faith  to  deny  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures. 
But  is  it  therefore  unsafe  to  inquire  into  the  subject  ? 
Free  inquiry,  properly  conducted,  is  important  as  well 
as  safe,  on  all  subjects  ;  because  it  is  the  only  effectual 
means  of  discovering  the  truth.  But  when,  after  all. 
the  truth  fails  of  being  discovered  ;  it  becomes  a  seri- 
ous question,  whether  the  failure  is  owing  to  the  want 
of  evidence,  or  to  something  wrong  in  the  state  of  the 
mind. 

In  pp.  103,  104,  Dr.  Ware  has  expressed  an  opinion 
which  I  cannot  pass  over  unnoticed,  though  it  is  the 
same,  substantially,  with  a  principle  which  I  controvert- 
ed in  my  Letters.  He  says,  that  the  Scriptures,  "  with- 
out any  reference  to  any  kind  of  atonement,  refer  the 
forgiveness  of  sin  solely  to  the  mercy  of  God,  by  which 
he  is  ready  to  accept  reformation  and  a  return  to  vir- 
tue." His  meaning  undoubtedly  is,  the  Scriptures  do 
this  in  many  instances.  And  so  the  reasoning  is  briefly 
this.  The  Scriptures,  in  many  places,  speak  of  God  as 
merciful,  and  ready  to  forgive  the  penitent,  without  ex- 

28 


214 

pressly  referring  to  any  atonement  ;  therefore  forgiveness 
rests  solely  on  the  mercy  of  God  and  the  repentance  of 
sinners,  and  the  atonement  has  nothing  to  do  with  it, 
except  as  it  may  be  conducive  to  repentance.  But  what 
would  Dr.  Ware  say,  if  I  should  reason  in  the  same  man- 
ner ?  Thus.  The  Scriptures  in  some  places  speak  of 
the  death  of  Christ  as  the  cause  or  means  of  our  for- 
giveness, without  any  mention  of  repentance  or  holiness 
in  us  ;  therefore  the  death  of  Christ  is  the  sole  cause  or 
means  of  our  forgiveness,  and  neither  our  repentance, 
nor  the  mercy  of  God  has  any  thing  to  do  with  it.  Or 
thus.  In  some  passages  the  Scriptures  attribute  our 
forgiveness  and  salvation  to  faith,  without  mentioning 
either  the  mercy  of  God,  or  the  blood  of  Christ  ;  there- 
fore  faith  is  the  only  cause  or  foundation  of  our  forgive- 
ness, and  neither  the  mercy  of  God,  nor  the  blood  of 
Christ  has  any  thing  to  do  with  it.  To  just  such  con- 
clusions shall  we  be  led,  if  we  attempt  to  learn  the  whole 
truth  on  the  subjects  of  religion,  from  any  particular 
passages,  while  we  disregard  other  passages  containing 
additional  information  on  the  same  subjects. 

There  are  indeed  many  texts,  which  declare  God's 
readiness  to  forgive  those  who  repent.  But  we  find  too 
that  a  propitiation  for  sin  was  appointed  from  the  be- 
ginning, and  that  the  appointed  propitiation,  which  was 
set  forth  in  the  Mosaic  law  by  various  sacrifices,  had 
the  same  influence  respecting  human  salvation  before 
the  coming  of  Christ,  as  after.  What  that  influence 
was,  we  learn  most  clearly  from  the  New  Testament. 
Wrhen  all  parts  of  Scripture  are  taken  together,  it  be- 
comes perfectly  clear,  that  every  declaration  of  God's 
readiness  to  forgive  the  penitent,  presupposes  the  pro- 
pitiation or  atonement,  made  by  the  death  of  Christ. 
Now   it    is    certainly  a    violation   of  every  just    princi- 


215 

pie  of  reasoning,  to  separate  the  declaration  of  God's 
readiness  to  forgive  from  tlie  consideration  of  that 
atonement,  which  he  appointed  from  the  beginning 
as  the  medium  of  forgiveness.  Whether  the  two 
tilings  are  always  mentioned  in  the  same  passage  or  not, 
they  are  mentioned,  and  connected  together  in  the  holy 
Scriptures.  These  Scriptures  we  receive  entire  ;  and 
we  learn  from  them,  first,  that  the  infinite  love  of  God 
was  the  original  fountain  of  salvation  ;  secondly,  that  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ  was  the  grand  expedient  adopted  by 
the  Governor  of  the  world,  to  render  human  salvation, 
which  would  otherwise  have  been  wholly  inadmissible, 
consistent  with  law  and  justice;  and  thirdly,  that  the  re- 
pentance of  sinners  is  indispensably  necessary  to  their 
enjoying  the  salvation  thus  graciously  provided.  So 
that  when  we  assert  that  the  blood  of  Christ  is,  in  one 
respect,  the  sole  ground  of  forgiveness,  we  do  not,  as 
Dr.  Ware  supposes,  forget  those  texts  which  attribute 
forgiveness  to  the  free  and  boundless  love  of  God,  nor 
those  which  represent  repentance  as  an  indispensable 
condition  of  forgiveness. 

From  p.  106,  107,  it  seems  that  Dr.  Ware  has  mis- 
apprehended my  meaning  as  to  the  entire  worthlessness 
of  all  the  good  works  and  dispositions  of  men.  What  I 
said  related  simply  to  justification.  But  because  good 
works  and  good  dispositions  are  worthless  in  regard  to 
this  single  point,  we  do  not  consider  them  worthless  in 
other  respects.  Although  we  believe,  what  Paul  abun- 
dantly teaches  in  his  Epistles,  that  our  good  works  must 
never  be  named  in  the  presence  of  God,  as  the  merito- 
rious cause  of  our  justification  ;  I  am  confident  we  con- 
sider them  of  as  high  value,  and  enforce  them  by  as  ma- 
ny and  as  powerful  motives,  as  any  of  our  opponents  ; — 
and  with  perfect  consistency  too.     For  it  can  never  be 


216 

shown,  that,  because  our  personal  holiness  is  of  no  ac- 
count as  a  ground  of  our  justification,  it  is  therefore  of 
no  estimation  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  not  worth  our  pur- 
suit. Does  our  denying  the  value  of  a  thing  in  one  par- 
ticular respect,  certainly  prove  that  we  deny  its  value 
in  all  other  respects  ?  We  not  only  reject  with  abhor- 
rence the  licentious  consequence,  mentioned  by  Dr. 
Ware  at  the  close  of  his  fifth  Letter,  but  we  assert  that 
it  does  not  by  any  means  follow  from  the  doctrine  we 
maintain ;  nay,  we  think  ourselves  able  to  show,  that 
our  doctrine  guards  against  it  far  more  effectually,  than 
any  other. 


CHAPTER  XI. 


ON    DIVINE    INFLUENCE. 


Most  of  what  Dr.  Ware  has  said,  Letter  VI,  in  regard 
to  the  use  of  means  and  motives,  is  perfectly  agreeable 
to  the  faith  of  the  Orthodox.  And  let  me  here  inquire, 
■what  reason  he  has  to  suppose,  that  the  special,  the 
efficacious,  or  even  the  supernatural  influence  of  the 
Spirit,  which  we  believe  to  be  concerned  in  regeneration, 
has  any  less  connexion  with  means  and  motives,  than  that 
divine  influence  which  he  asserts.  We  make  the  pecu- 
liar character  which  we  attribute  to  the  divine  influence, 
to  consist,  not  at  all  in  its  setting  aside  the  use  of  means 
and  rational  motives,  but  in  its  giving  them  their  proper 
effect,  or  producing  its  own  proper  effect  by  them.  And  one 
•would  think,  that  a  divine  influence,  which  renders  means 


217 

and  motives  effectual  to  bring  men  to  repentance,  must 
at  least  be  more  highly  valued,  than  any  influence  which 
falls  short  of  this.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  indeed  very 
strange,  that  any  man  should  not  see  at  once,  that  the 
influence  of  God's  spirit  must  be  desirable  and  excellent, 
in  proportion  to  its  efficacy,  or  in  proportion  to  the  cer- 
tainty, with  which  it  produces  its  effect. 

Dr.  Ware  very  justly  and  fairly  represents  our  dif- 
ferent views  respecting  divine  influence,  as  intimately 
connected  with  our  views  respecting  the  natural  state  of 
man,  p.  122,  and  elsewhere.  Now  if  our  views  of  man's 
depravity  arc  admitted  to  be  correct,  our  opponents  must, 
I  think,  be  satisfied,  that  just  such  a  divine  influence  as 
we  assert,  is  necessary  to  his  renovation,  and  that  no 
influence  short  of  this  would  answer  the  purpose.  They 
now  think  a  less  powerful  influence  sufficient,  because 
they  think  man  less  depraved.  Should  they  ever  be 
convinced,  that  man  has  that  degree  of  moral  corruption 
which  we  attribute  to  him,  they  would  at  the  same  time 
be  convinced,  that  he  cannot  be  brought  to  a  holy  life, 
without  a  divine  influence  sufficient  to  overcome  a  strong 
and  total  opposition  to  holiness,  and  to  effect  a  new 
moral  creation. 

In  a  variety  of  passages,  Dr.  Ware  asserts  that  our 
notion  of  divine  influence  is  inconsistent  with  human  lib- 
erty and  activity, — inconsistent  with  the  moral  character 
of  God — with  those  texts  which  complain  of  the  sins  of 
men, — with  the  commands  of  the  gospel  to  repent  and 
believe,  and  with  the  sincerity  of  all  the  exhortations 
and  encouragements  given  to  men.  But  of  this  inconsis- 
tency, in  any  of  the  instances  mentioned,  what  evidence 
has  he  produced?  And  what  evidence  can  he  produce? 
As  to  its  inconsistency  with  human  liberty  and  activity  ; 
I  refer  to   the   views   J  have  already  advanced.     Our 


218 

doctrine  is,  that  the  divine  influence  effectually  directs  and 
regulates  the  liberty  and  activity  of  those  who  are  saved  ; 
that  it  induces  them  to  use  their  voluntary  and  moral 
powers  in  a  right  manner.  Now  is  it  setting  aside  their 
liberty  or  activity,  for  the  Spirit  of  God  to  direct  it, 
and  regulate  its  operations,  or  induce  them  properly  to 
use  it  ?  Dr.  Ware  says,  that  "  in  those,  upon  whom  this 
influence  is  exerted,  its  effects  take  place  without  any 
agency  or  cooperation  of  theirs,  for  they  are  wholly 
passive."  But  although  something  like  this  seems,  in 
not  a  few  instances,  to  have  been  maintained  by  Ortho- 
dox men  ;  I  can  by  no  means  assent  to  it.  The  subjects 
operated  upon  by  the  divine  Spirit,  are  active,  moral  be- 
ings ;  and  the  effects  produced  in  them  are,  primarily, 
right  moral  affections,  and  secondarily,  correspondent  ex- 
ternal actions.  How  can  these  "  effects  take  place,  with- 
out any  agency  of  theirs  •?'  when  the  effects  are  in  fact 
their  agency  itself,  properly  directed  ? 

And  how  can  it  be  supposed  to  be  inconsistent  with 
the  moral  character  of  God,  for  him  to  exert  an  influence 
upon  sinners,  which  will  certainly  secure  their  repentance 
and  salvation  ?  Should  we  not  rather  think,  that  a  Be- 
ing of  infinite  goodness  would  choose  to  exert  an  influence, 
so  important  to  the  highest  interests  of  men  ?  Indeed,  if 
there  is  any  considerable  difficulty  in  the  case,  it  is  the 
fact,  that  so  desirable  an  influence  is  not  actually  impart- 
ed to  all.  But  as  to  this,  I  hardly  need  to  remark,  that 
no  blessing  which  God  bestows,  is  ever  thought  to  lose 
its  value,  because  it  is  not  granted  to  all.  Nor,  on  the 
other  hand,  is  there  any  room  for  those  who  are  left 
destitute,  to  find  fault,  unless  they  can  present  a  just 
claim  to  the  blessings  withheld.  So  far  at  least  this 
subject  is  very  plain. 

Again.      Is   our  doctrine  "inconsistent   with    those 


219 

texts,  which  complain  of  the  sins  of  men  ?"    The  reason 
which  Dr.  Ware  assigns  to  prove  such  an   inconsistency 
is,  that,  if  our  doctrine  is   true,   "  men   act  according  to 
the  nature   given    them,  and   could    not    act   otherwise, 
without  an  inlluence    which  is  not  given    thetn."       The 
first  part  of  the  reason  which  is  here  assigned,  and  which 
has  a  pretty  obscure   relation   to  the  subject,  is,  that  on 
the  supposition  that  our  doctrine  is   true,  "  men  act  ac- 
cording to  the  nature  given  them." — And  how   do    they 
act,  on  supposition   the  Unitarian  doctrine    is    true  ?     Is 
there  any  other  way  in  which  any  accountable    being  in 
the  Universe  can  act,  but  according  to  his  nature,  wheth- 
er that  nature  be  good  or  bad  ? — The  other  part  of  the 
reason  is,  that  "men  could  not  act  otherwise,  without  an 
influence  which  is  not   given   them."     They   "could  not 
act  otherwise."      But   are    men  destitute  of  any  power 
which  is  necessary  to  moral  agency,  because  they  are  not 
made  holy  ?    If  they  are  not,  then  this    reason   has   no 
force.      If  they  are,  then  none,  who  are    not    holy,  have 
the  power  which  is  necessary  to  moral  agency  ;    which 
is  the  same  as  to  say,  no   sinners   can    be    moral   agents. 
And  this  is  the  same  as  saying,  that  no  moral  agents  can 
be  sinners  ;   and  if  so,  there  can  be  no  sin  in  the  universe. 
It  is  said,  that  our  doctrine  is   inconsistent    with   the 
commands  of  the  gospel  to  repent,  believe,  &c.      Bat  how 
does  this  appear?  Why,  because  "they  have  no  power 
to  do  this,  till  almighty  power  is  exerted  to  make  them 
willing."      But   surely  we   are   not    to   consider   men  as 
wanting  the    power  that    is  necessary  to   moral  agency, 
because  God  does  not  actually  bring  them  to  repent  and 
believe.      Though   they  are    sinners,  and    dependent  on 
the  spirit  of  God  for  sanctilication,  they  are  moral  agents. 
Their   being  sinners   necessarily  implies    moral    agency. 
And   if  they  are    moral  agents,  it    is  most   clearly  their 


220 

duty  to  repent,  believe,  and  obey.  And  is  it  not  prop- 
er that  the  gospel  should  command  them  to  do  their 
duty? 

Finally  ;  Dr.  Ware  signifies  that  our  doctrine  is  in- 
consistent with  the  sincerity  of  the  exhortations  and  en- 
couragements of  the  gospel  to  exertion,  since  it  supposes 
men  incapable  of  willing  to  perform  their  duty  ;  that  it 
is  not  of  themselves  to  will  any  thing  good,  &c.  But 
our  doctrine  makes  men  no  otherwise  incapable  of  wil- 
ling to  perform  their  duty,  than  as  they  are  indisposed 
or  disinclined  to  perform  it.  And  must  the  exhortations 
to  duty  contained  in  the  gospel,  and  the  promises  to  those 
who  perform  it,  be  considered  insincere,  because  men  are 
not  inclined  to  perform  it  ?  If  so,  there  is  but  little  sin- 
cerity in  the  Bible. 


Dr.  Ware's  last  Letter  is  a  reply  to  mine,  on  the 
moral  influence  of  Orthodoxy  compared  with  the  influ- 
ence of  Unitarianism.  To  many  of  the  remarks  contain- 
ed in  this  Letter,  I  cordially  subscribe  ;  but  not  to  all. 

"Love  to  Christ,"  Dr.  Ware  says,  "  will  depend  on 
our  view  of  the  nature  and  value  of  the  benefits  we  re- 
ceive through  him,  and  not  at  all  on  the  rank  he  holds 
in  the  scale  of  being."  p.  127.  This  is  saying,  that  our 
love  to  Christ  will  be  the  same,  both  in  kind  and  degree, 
whether  he  be  possessed  of  mere  human  perfection,  or 
of  divine  perfection.  And  this  is  saying,  that  human 
perfection  is  entitled  to  as  high  a  regard,  as  divine.  And 
this  is  the  same  as  to  say,  a  perfect  man  may  properly 
be  the  object  of  as  high  an  affection,  as  God.  And  if  this 
is  true,  it  is  of  no  practical  consequence,  whether  we 
consider  the  Supreme  Being  as  any  thing  more  than  a 
holy  angel,  or  a  holy  man;  as  our  "love  to  him  will  not 


221 

depend  at  all  on  the  rank  he  holds  in  the  scale  of  being." 
Of  course,  all  the  labour  of  the  inspired  writers  to  invest 
his  character  with  divine  glory  is  of  no  value,  as  it  can 
have  no  effect  upon  our  feelings.  Indeed,  if  Dr.  Ware's 
remark  is  true,  it  is  no  more  proper  to  require  us  to  love 
God  with  all  the  heart  and  soul  and  mind  and  strength, 
than  to  require  us  to  love  a  perfectly  holy  man  in  this 
manner  ,-  and  the  distinctions  constantly  made  between 
Jehovah  and  all  inferior  ranks  of  beings  are  of  no  impor- 
tance. For,  whether  he  holds  a  higher  or  lower  rank, 
our  love,  our  confidence,  our  veneration,  our  worship  will 
all  be  the  same.  On  this  principle,  the  practice  of  the 
Romish  church  in  rendering  divine  worship  to  the  mother 
of  Jesus,  and  other  saints,  is  not  so  faulty  as  Protestants 
have  supposed.  For  those  departed  saints,  being  per- 
fectly holy,  may  justly  be  regarded  as  objects  of  the 
highest  religious  affection,  inasmuch  as  the  propriety  of 
this  affection  "  depends  not  at  all  on  the  rank  they  hold 
in  the  scale  of  being."  Such  is  the  favourite  position  of 
Dr.  Ware,  and  others; — a  position  hastily  adopted  by 
them,  I  am  sure, — and  confounding;  things  which  differ  as 

77  or? 

much,  as  any  one  thing  can,  by  the  whole  length  and 
breadth  of  infinity,  differ  from  another.  What  effect 
must  it  have  upon  us,  to  be  told  in  earnest,  that  it  is  a 
matter  of  no  practical  consequence,  whether  our  Saviour 
is  the  creator  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  or  a  mere 
creature, — God  over  all,  or  a  mere  child  of  Adam  ;  that, 
whether  he  is  the  one  or  the  other,  our  love  to  him  is  to 
be  the  same, — our  confidence  and  our  worship  the  same  ? 
Certainly  Unitarians  have  made  the  assertion,  above 
quoted,  rashly  ;  and  if  they  consider  well  what  it  implies, 
they  will  not  be  fond  of  repeating  it. 

But  I  have  a  word  more  on  this   point.      If  Unitari- 
ans do  indeed   think  that  "love  to  Christ  depends  not 

29 


222 

at  all  on  the  rank  he  holds  in  the  scale  of  being ;"  why 
do  they  charge  us  with  giving  him  too  high  a  place  in 
our  affections  ?  Why  do  they  charge  us,  as  they  often  do, 
with  idolatry?  According  to  Dr.  Ware's  position, Christ 
deserves  as  high  an  affection,  as  if  he  were  exalted  to  the 
rank  of  divinity.  To  say  he  does  not,  is  to  say,  the  de- 
gree of  our  affection  must  depend  on  his  rank  in  the  scale 
of  being.  Indeed,  Dr.  Ware  himself  makes  it  depend  on 
this.  He  tells  us,  that  Unitarians  cannot  give  Christ  the 
"supremacy  of  affection,  which  is  due  to  God  only;"  and 
that  they  cannot  do  this,  because  they  ascribe  to  Christ, 
"  only  derived  excellences,  and  a  subordinate  agency." 
And  this  is  the  same  as  if  he  had  said,  they  cannot  give 
him  their  supreme  affection,  because  he  holds  the  rank  of 
a  mere  creature;  thus  making  our  love  to  him  depend, 
directly  and  essentially,  on  the  rank  he  holds  in  the  scale 
of  being.  They  justify  themselves  in  not  giving  him 
their  supreme  affection,  by  alleging  that  he  has  only 
the  rank  of  a  derived,  dependent  being.  And  they 
are  indeed  justified,  if  that  is  his  rank.  On  the  oth- 
er hand,  our  supreme  affection  is  due  to  him,  if  he  pos- 
sesses supreme  excellence.  So  that  nothing  can  be  more 
contrary  to  reason  and  to  fact,  than  the  position  that 
"our  love  to  Christ,  depends  not  at  all  on  the  rank 
he  holds  in  the  scale  of  being."  The  question  between 
us  and  Unitarians  respecting  the  character  of  Christ,  is, 
in  effect,  a  question  respecting  the  degree  of  love  and 
veneration  which  is  due  to  him.  And  every  effort  of 
Unitarians  to  disprove  the  proper  Deity  of  Christ,  is,  in 
plain  truth,  an  effort  to  convince  us,  .that  we  have  exer- 
cised towards  him  too  high  a  degree  of  veneration  and 
love.  B'jt  for  ourselves,  we  are  satisfied  that  in  this 
respect,  our  great  danger  is  that  of  falling  below  the 
affection,  which  his  glorious  attributes  demand,  and  which 
the  precepts  and  examples  of  the  Apostles  inculcate. 


223 

Dr.  Ware  asks  upon  what  ground  I  can  speak  "  of  a 
future  reward  to  be  obtained  by  virtuous  efforts,"  since 
I  have  said  that  no  works  of  ours  must  be  named  in  the 
presence  of  God,  and  that  we  must  rely  on  the  blood  of 
Christ,  as  the  sole  ground  of  forgiveness.  But  can  there 
be  any  difficulty  here  ?  May  not  an  undeserved  favour, 
a  mere  gift,  which  has  been  procured  for  us  by  the  kind- 
ness of  another,  be  proposed  to  us,  on  conditions  which 
we  are  to  fulfil  ?  The  rewards  of  heaven  are  the  re- 
wards of  grace — procured  wholly  by  the  merit  of  Christ. 
But  may  not  our  diligent  exertion  be  the  means  of  ob- 
taining them?  Suppose  a  man  has  servants,  who  owe 
him  a  just  debt  to  a  large  amount,  but,  through  their  own 
fault,  are  rendered  unable  ever  to  make  any  payment. 
And  suppose  he  is  moved  by  compassion  to  forgive  the 
debt,  and  besides  this,  to  provide  a  charity  fund  to  be 
disposed  of  for  their  benefit.  May  he  not  encourage 
good  conduct  in  them,  by  making  it  still  depend  upon 
their  own  exertions,  whether  they  shall  receive  the  gra- 
tuity offered  them?  May  not  the  gratuity  be  held  up  as 
a  reward  of  their  good  conduct  ?  And  if  they  obtain  the 
reward,  must  not  their  hearts  be  constantly  turned  to- 
wards the  generosity  of  their  disinterested  benefactor  ? 
Deep  in  debt  as  they  are,  and  depending  on  the  mere 
kindness  of  another,  will  they  ever  name  their  exertions, 
as  giving  them  any  claim  to  their  reward,  or  as  making 
it,  in  any  proper  sense,  a  purchase  ? 

At  the  bottom  of  p.  130,  Dr.  Ware  says,  that  a  mor- 
al inability  is  in  fact,  to  all  practical  purposes,  the  same 
as  a  natural  inability."  A  moral  inability  is  an  inability 
Avhich  results  from  moral  causes.  Thus  a  man's  strong 
disinclination  to  do  any  particular  duty  constitutes  a  mor- 
al inability.  But  is  this  strong  disinclination  the  same, 
as  an  inability  consisting  in  the  want  of  physical  power? 


224 

As  to  "practical  purposes,"  these  two  kinds  of  inability 
are  extremely  and  totally  different.  The  one  constitutes 
blame-worthiness  ;  the  other  frees  from  it.  We  are 
criminal  in  proportion  to  the  one,  and  exculpated  in  pro- 
portion to  the  other. 

On  the  reasoning  of  Dr.  Ware,  pp.  131,  132,  I  have 
several  remarks  to  offer.  The  reasoning  relates  to  the 
moral  influence  of  punishment  in  preventing  sin,  and  in 
reclaiming  men  from  it.  I  had  represented,  in  my  Let- 
ters, that  the  salutary  influence  of  the  punishment 
threatened  must  be  in  proportion  to  the  greatness  of  the 
evil  which  we  apprehend  to  be  involved  in  it ;  and  up- 
on this  principle,  had  endeavoured  to  show,  that  the 
view  which  the  Orthodox  entertain  of  the  inexpressible 
greatness  and  endless  duration  of  future  punishment  must 
have  the  most  powerful  tendency  to  deter  men  from 
the  commission  of  sin.  The  argument  which  Dr.  Ware 
arrays  against  this  reasoning  is,  in  brief,  that  such  a  pun- 
ishment is  obviously  disproportioned  to  the  demerit  of 
sin,  and  so  cannot  be  firmly  believed  ;  that  the  "  terror" 
it  excites  is  so  "  vague  and  indistinct,  and  so  mingled 
with  incredulity,"  as  to  "destroy  its  practical  effects." 
But  has  not  Dr.  Ware  entirely  mistaken  the  real  ques- 
tion in  debate  ?  When  we  would  ascertain  the  influ- 
ence of  any  particular  sentiment,  we  do  not  surely  look 
to  those  who  disbelieve  and  reject  it,  nor  to  those  who 
half-believe  it.  Who  ever  attempted  to  honour  Chris- 
tianity, by  showing  its  happy  influence  upon  Mahome- 
tans or  infidels  ?  When  Dr.  Ware  speaks  of  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Unitarian  doctrine,  does  he  mean  to  speak 
of  its  influence  upon  those  who  reject  it,  or  upon  those 
■who  receive  it  ?  No  doctrine  can  produce  its  proper 
effect  in  any  other  way,  than  by  being  cordially  believed. 
The  influence  which  any  doctrine  has,  is  the  same  thing 
as  the  influence   which   the  belief  of  it   has.     Let  Dr.. 


225 

Ware  then  come  to  the  question,  and  inquire,  what  will 
be  the  influence  of  our  doctrine  upon  those  who  serious- 
ly believe  it.  Let  him  look  into  the  minds  of  those,  who 
have  so  deep  an  impression  of  the  evil  of  sin,  that  end- 
less punishment  appears  to  be  its  just  desert;  who  as 
certainly  believe  that  such  punishment  will  be  inflicted 
on  the  wicked,  as  that  endless  happiness  will  be  confer- 
red on  the  righteous.  And  let  him  inquire  what  will  be 
the  proper  effect  of  the  doctrine,  thus  cordially  be- 
lieved. 

But  Dr.  Ware  seems  to  think  it  impossible  to  believe 
the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment.  Doubtless  he  speaks 
of  an  impossibility  which  Unitarians  feel  ;  for  he  surely 
would  not  charge  us  with  insincerity,  when  we  profess 
to  believe  the  doctrine.  Now  I  admit  that  Unitarians 
may  find  it  difficult  or  impossible  to  bring  themselves  to 
believe  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment.  With  the 
same  habits  of  thinking  on  religious  subjects  which  they 
have,  I  should  find  it  impossible  too.  But  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  this  doctrine  would  become  perfectly  credi- 
ble to  Unitarians,  if  their  views  of  the  law  and  govern- 
ment of  God,  and  the  evil  of  sin,  should  be  like  those 
which  the  Orthodox  entertain.  And  if  they  should 
come  really  to  believe  the  doctrine,  they  could  easily 
judge  of  its  influence. 

In  p.  135,  and  elsewhere,  Dr.  Ware  represents  the 
obvious  sense  of  any  passage,  as  being  the  same  with  the 
literal  sense  •  whereas  in  a  thousand  cases,  the  Jigurativt 
sense  is  the  obvious  one. 

Dr.  Ware  speaks  of  the  "  little  success,  which  has 
attended  all  endeavours  in  modern  times  to  extend  the 
bounds  of  Christianity  by  missions  for  the  conversion  of 
barbarous  pagan  nations."  If  Dr.  Ware  could  have  the 
pleasure  of  being  fully  acquainted  with  all  the  facts 
which  are  before  the  public,  and  which   have  been   the 


226 

subject  of  so  much  joy,  and  so  much  thanksgiving  to 
God,  I  am  persuaded  he  would  adopt  language  very 
diiferent  from  this.  And  if  he  had  known  the  character 
of  Missionaries  as  well  as  some  of  us  do,  he  would  hardly 
have  descended  to  notice,  except  with  a  sharp  rebuke, 
the  disgust  or  the  uncandid  surmises  of  those,  who  are 
unfriendly  to  the  cause  of  missions.  See  pp.  142,  143. 

To  all  that  Dr.  Ware  says,  pp.  148,  149,  of  the  hap- 
py influence  of  Unitarian  sentiments  to  bring  the  learn- 
ed, the  wealthy,  the  refined,  and  those  in  exalted  sta- 
tions to  be  "  efficient  friends,  and  serious  professors"  of 
religion,  I  have  only  this  to  reply  ;  that  I  should  most 
heartily  rejoice  in  such  an  influence,  and  wish  it  increased 
and  perpetuated,  could  I  be  well  satisfied,  that  the  re- 
ligion, thus  promoted  in  the  higher  classes  of  society,  is 
indeed  the  religion  which  the  inspired  pages  teach,  and 
which  will  bear  the  inspection  of  him,  who  will  judge 
the  world  at  his  coming. 

Near  the  close  of  his  Letters,  Dr.  Ware  expresses 
some  surprise,  that  I  should  speak  of  the  Unitarian  sys- 
tem as  "indeed  another  gospel."  But  why  should  he  be 
surprised  ?  Does  not  every  thing  I  have  said  in  the 
controversy  imply  a  serious  conviction  of  this  ?  And 
have  not  the  more  bold  and  decided  Unitarians  in  Ens;- 
land  and  America  given  up  all  thought  of  any  compro- 
mise, and  all  desire  of  any  alliance,  between  the  two 
systems  ?  And  does  not  Dr.  Ware  himself,  in  his  last 
sentence,  plainly  signify,  that  one  and  only  one  of  these 
systems  is  to  be  considered  as  the  true  gospel  ?  "Chris- 
tians," he  says,  "  will  venture  to  judge  between  the  rival 
svstems,  and  will  take  the  liberty  to  decide,  each  one  for 
himself,  whether  the  gospel,  as  it  is  held  by  Unitarians, 
or  as  it  is  held  by  Trinitarians  and  Calvinists,  be  the  gospel 
of' Christ."  Now  we  only  ask  for  ourselves  the  liberty, 
which  belongs  to   all.     Unitarians  judge   that  their  sys- 


227 

tern  is  the  true  gospel.  We  adopt  a  conclusion  directly 
opposite.  In  regard  to  this  subject,  on  which  we  have 
opinions  so  totally  diverse,  it  would  be  inconsistent  with 
plain  truth  to  pretend  that  we  agree,  or  to  do  any  thing 
implying  an  agreement.  On  other  subjects  we  may 
agree,  and  ought  to  agree.  Let  there  be  no  interrup- 
tion of  the  advantages  or  pleasures  of  civil,  social,  or  lit- 
erary intercourse  ;  no  interruption  of  the  offices  of  kind- 
ness, or  of  the  feelings  of  benevolence.  But  in  regard  to 
the  great  subject  of  controversy  between  us,  let  us  re- 
vere conscience  and  be  faithful  to  the  truth.  If  Unita- 
rians soberly  declare,  that  they  regard  us  as  guilty  of 
idolatry  in  the  honour  and  worship  we  render  to  Christ, 
and  that  they  can  have  no  communion  with  us  ;  instead  of 
crying  out  against  them  for  bigotry,  we  cheerfully  allow 
them  the  rights  of  conscience  and  private  judgment,  and, 
in  this  case,  give  them  the  credit  of  a  manly  consistency. 
So  on  our  part,  if  we  declare  our  serious  conviction,  that 
their  system  is  another  Gospel,  and  that  it  is  inconsistent 
with  our  allegiance  to  Christ  to  have  any  fellowship  with 
them  in  the  peculiarities  of  their  faith  and  worship  ; 
we  request  them  to  extend  to  us  the  exercise  of  the 
same  indulgence  and  candour,  and  to  suffer  us,  without  re- 
proach, to  serve  God  according  to  our  own  consciences. 
If  Dr.  Ware  were  not  very  distant  from  the  boast- 
ing, which  has  characterized  some  Unitarians,  I  should 
be  disposed  to  animadvert  upon  a  {e\v  passages  in  p. 
132,  where  he  says  not  only  that  the  moral  influence  of 
the  Unitarian  doctrine  is  "  far  more  certain,  and  power- 
ful, and  salutary,  and  purifying,"  than  the  influence  of 
Orthodoxy,  but  that  the  virtue  of  Unitarians  "  is  of  a 
more  pure,  generous,  and  elevated  kind,"  than  that  of  their 
opponents.  I  cannot  bring  myself  to  contest  this  last 
point  with  Unitarians.  I  doubt  whether  I  ought  to 
bestow  upon  any  virtue,  which  we  are  conscious  of  pos- 


228 

sessing,  the  shining  honours,  which  Dr.  Ware  here  seems 
willing  to  bestow  upon  the  virtue  of  Unitarians.  But  af- 
ter all,  the  language  he  generally  uses  on  this  subject,  is 
humility  itself,  compared  with  the  inflated  encomiums, 
which  some  of  his  brethren  have  bestowed  upon  them- 
selves, and  upon  one  another.  And  let  me  add  here, 
because  I  love  to  honour  my  opponent,  that  the  severest 
censures  he  casts  upon  us,  are,  as  to  manner,  courtesy 
and  mildness  itself,  compared  with  the  spirit  and  lan- 
guage of  some,  who  boast  of  liberality  and  candour.  Let 
me  be  excused  for  one  more  remark  in  this  place,  and 
that  is,  that  I  shall  think  I  have  not  written  or  lived  in 
vain,  if  I  may  contribute  in  any  measure  to  diminish  the 
incivility,  and  violence,  and,  I  was  ready  to  say,  barbari- 
ty, with  which  religious  controversy  has  too  generally 
been  carried  on,  and  to  promote  a  spirit  of  benevolence, 
and  kindness,  and  forbearance  among  those,  who  differ 
from  each  other.  Let  it  not  be  supposed,  however,  that 
I  wish,  in  any  measure,  to  promote  that  timid,  time-serv- 
ing policy,  which  would  either  conceal  the  truth,  or  treat 
it  as  though  it  were  of  little  consequence.  The  Lord 
deliver  every  friend  of  Orthodoxy  from  this.  But  I  would 
still  remember  the  rebuke,  which  our  blessed  Saviour 
administered  to  those,  who  in  a  moment  of  resentment 
and  impatience,  wished  for  divine  judgments  upon  some 
who  did  not  favour  their  cause.  And  I  would  ever  im- 
press upon  my  memory  and  my  heart,  the  admonition  of 
the  Apostle,  that  "  the  servant  of  the  Lord  must  not 
strive,  but  be  gentle  unto  all  men,"  even  opposers.  And 
if  in  any  thing  which  I  have  written  in  this  controversy, 
I  have  violated  this  excellent  precept,  the  Lord  forgive 
such  an  offence  against  the  spirit  of  love. 


INI 

m  urns 

I 

.-••  ■.'•,^$-£fi&£.,. 


■!,,! 


